However, despite these advances, it is important to under-

WHEELCHAIR ENGINEERING
RORY COOPER
DAN DING
ANDREW M. KWARCIAK
ROSEMARIE COOPER
SONGFENG GUO
DONALD M. SPAETH
EMILY ZIPFEL
ANNMARIE KELLEHER
MICHAEL L. BONINGER
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
1. INTRODUCTION
Throughout history, wheelchair design has evolved along-
side the mentality toward people with disabilities. For
centuries, people have sustained injuries or contracted
conditions that have impaired their ability to ambulate;
and, for about as long, efforts have been made to develop
methods for dealing with and eventually overcoming their
disabilities. Some of the original forms of transportation
for persons with disabilities included hammocks, wheel-
barrows, and common household chairs with wheels at-
tached to their legs. These devices required the help of an
assistant and were designed for limited travel. Even with
the creation of the first wooden wheelchair, the potential
of people with disabilities was still greatly restricted. In
the 1930s, two young engineers, Everest and Jennings,
began building steel wheelchairs. With the help of life-
prolonging medical advances, their designs became the
standard following World War II and remained so for the
next few decades (1). Driven by the needs of active wheel-
chair users, especially wheelchair athletes during 1970s
and 1980s, lightweight manual wheelchairs were intro-
duced and became mainstream mobility aids for wheel-
chair users.
In recent years, considerable changes have been made
to the design and intent of the wheelchair. Arguably the
greatest improvements are attributable to The Americans
with Disabilities Act, signed into law in 1990. The law,
which requires public facilities to provide accommodations
for people with disabilities, has greatly broadened the
perspectives of both wheelchair users and wheelchair
manufacturers. More than ever, wheelchair designs are
reflecting the desires of people with disabilities: to travel,
explore, and be integrated members of society. By borrow-
ing ideas from the bicycle and even the automobile
industry, wheelchair manufacturers are creating a more
mobile, more adaptive means of mobility.
stand the specific demands of each user. Proper wheel-
chair selection should be based primarily on the
capabilities of the individual and on the intended use of
the wheelchair. To adequately accommodate all indivi-
duals with mobility disabilities, specialized wheelchair
designs have been and will continue to be developed (1,2).
2.1.1. Depot and Attendant-Propelled Wheelchairs. The
depot, or institutional, wheelchair has provided depend-
able mobility for decades. Used primarily in hospitals,
nursing care facilities, and airports, the depot wheelchair
is designed to provide inexpensive, low-maintenance mo-
bility solutions for a large variety of users. It is con-
structed with heavier, more durable materials and is
available in preset sizes (referring to seat widths, seat
depths, and backrest heights). As a result, the depot
wheelchair offers limited performance and is generally
inappropriate for people who require longstanding perso-
nal mobility.
The typical depot wheelchair has a single cross-brace
frame, which allows the wheelchair to be folded for easy
storage, and comes equipped with swing-away footrests,
removable armrests, and solid tires (see Fig. 1). Swing-
away footrests can be rotated outward to permit proper
seating of the user and be locked into place to provide
lower limb support and stability. Armrests offer comfort
and support for the upper limbs, as well as shield clothing
from getting caught in the wheels. Solid wheels are used
to reduce maintenance; however, pneumatic tires can be
substituted for improved ride comfort and outdoor usage.
Finally, the depot wheelchair has rearward pointing han-
dles on the top of the backrest. These handles allow for an
attendant to provide assistance with the propulsion of the
wheelchair.
To further accommodate the assistance of an attendant,
the attendant-propelled wheelchair provides more appro-
priate design considerations. Its primary consideration is
the treatment of both the rider and the attendant as users.

2. MANUAL WHEELCHAIRS

2.1. Classes of Wheelchairs

To meet the increasing demands of users, wheelchairs
have evolved from simple chairs with wheels to high-
performance mobility devices, capable of providing a Figure 1. Depot-style manual wheelchair.
safe, comfortable, and efficient means of transportation.
1

Wiley Encyclopedia of Biomedical Engineering, Copyright & 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2 WHEELCHAIR ENGINEERING

To address this concern, the attendant-propelled wheel-

chair has more ergonomically positioned handles that
prevent undue stress to the hands, arms, and back. In
addition, it may be equipped with smaller rear wheels to
allow for greater maneuverability. The attendant-pro-
pelled wheelchairs can also be equipped with tilt-in-space
and backrest recline features for those who require pos-
tural support devices.

2.1.2. Rehabilitation Wheelchairs. The rehabilitation

wheelchair is designed to meet the long-term mobility
needs of users seeking to rejoin the community. As with
the depot wheelchair, the needs of the intended user are
paramount in the selection and configuration of a rehabi-
litation wheelchair. Based on user needs, two distinguish-
able types of rehabilitation wheelchairs exist: those that
are intended to aid users with specific disabilities and
those that offer higher performance for more active users.
Three types of injury-specific wheelchairs are the am-
putee, one-arm-drive, and foot-drive wheelchair. The am-
putee wheelchair is designed to accommodate users who,
because of the loss of lower limbs, have a rearward-shifted
center of gravity when in a seated position. To compensate
for this imbalance, the rear axle is extended backwards to
prevent tipping and provide additional stability. The one-
arm-drive wheelchair is designed to provide effective
ambulation for users with single-arm amputations or
motor impairments. It features a linkage between the
two rear wheels that allows the user to propel both wheels
with a single pushrim. The foot-drive wheelchair is used to
provide an efficient means of transportation for people
with weakness in their upper and lower extremities. Foot-
drive wheelchairs have a low seat, enabling the user to
reach the floor comfortably. Depending on the strength
and coordination of the user, the wheelchair may be
designed to allow the user to either pull or push with
the legs, which may require the simple removal of the
footrests on a standard wheelchair (leg pulling propul-
sion), or the reconfiguration of the wheels, placing the
casters in the rear and the large wheels in front for
improved stability and control (leg pushing propulsion).
For active users who engage in frequent activity, light-
weight and ultra-lightweight wheelchairs provide a more
suitable means of mobility. Both wheelchair types feature
streamlined frame designs (see Fig. 2) that permit greater
control and adjustability. Numerous features can be ad-
justed or specified for manufacture, including, but not
limited to, the wheelbase, axle position, camber (angle of
the rear wheels), seat angle, and caster type. According to
the Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) Common
Procedure Coding System1, the primary differences be-
tween the two types of wheelchairs are their level of
adjustability and their weight. A lightweight wheelchair
(HCFA code: K0004) weighs less than 35 pounds and is
either minimally adjustable or nonadjustable, whereas an
ultra-lightweight wheelchair (K0005) must weigh less
than 30 pounds and provide moderate adjustability or
selectivity. Their customizability and reduced weight
1
The HCFA coding system for wheelchairs is only used in the
United States.
Figure 2. Ultra-light manual wheelchair.
makes them easier to fit and maneuver than standard
steel depot wheelchairs (K0001–K0003), which are non-
adjustable and exceed weights of 36 pounds.
Studies of manual wheelchair performance have indi-
cated that ultra-lightweight wheelchairs are more durable
and more cost effective then either lightweight wheel-
chairs or depot wheelchairs (3). In a series of fatigue tests,
developed by the American National Standards Institute
in association with the Rehabilitation Engineering and
Assistive Technology Society of North America (4), ultra-
lightweight wheelchairs completed a greater number of
equivalent cycles prior to failure (5). Although ultra-light-
weight wheelchairs are often more expensive than either
of the other two models, they have been shown to provide a
better overall value.
As a result of their superior performance, ultra-light-
weight wheelchairs have been modified for sport use and
to accommodate different types of frame suspension.
Although sport wheelchairs are not recognized by a spe-
cific classification, they feature unique frame designs that
may include leg and caster protectors and other specifica-
tions that are heavily dependent on the intended sport.
Suspension manual wheelchairs are ultra-lightweight
wheelchairs that have been fitted with rear suspension
elements. It has been found that extended exposure to
whole-body vibration can cause rider discomfort and a
variety of harmful physiological effects (6). Therefore,
wheelchair manufacturers have incorporated suspension
elements into their designs in an effort to reduce the
transmission of vibrations to the rider. The types of
suspension elements used include springs, elastomers,
and spring and damper units (see Fig. 3). A preliminary
study of these designs showed that during curb descents of
varied heights, wheelchairs with suspension did not sig-
nificantly reduce the amount of vibrations experienced by

Figure 3. Suspension manual wheelchair (spring and damper
units).
the user as compared with various ultra-lightweight fold-
ing-frame wheelchairs (7).
Several types of specialty manual wheelchair designs
also exist, including reclining, tilt-in-space, and standing
wheelchairs. Both reclining wheelchairs and tilt-in-space
wheelchairs allow the user to alter his position in order to
redistribute pressure, improve blood flow, and avoid tissue
damage in the buttocks and upper legs. The reclining
wheelchair includes a series of hinges that permit the
frame to be reconfigured to support the user in a supine
position, whereas the tilt-in-space wheelchair transfers
the weight of the user onto the back by tilting the entire
seat rearward. The standing wheelchair allows the user to
stand in order to perform functions that cannot otherwise
be performed from a seated position.
2.2. Frame Design
The design of the frame is crucial to the performance and
transportability of the wheelchair. Currently, all wheel-
chair frames are centered on the use of lightweight tubing,
which is welded or bolted together with lugs. The tubing,
as well as the solid components of the wheelchair (axle
plate, footrest, and armrests), can be made from alumi-
num, steel, titanium, or an advanced composite material
such as Kevlar or carbon fiber. Of these materials, alumi-
num provides a good combination of strength, corrosion
resistance, low weight, cost, and availability. Steel and
titanium are both stronger, however, are heavier and more
expensive, respectively. Composite materials also offer
higher strength, although they are sparingly used because
of their high manufacturing costs. Overall, aluminum is
the most widely used material for wheelchair frame de-
sign, and titanium is becoming more popular with its light
weight and durability.
Two standard types of frame designs (i.e., folding and
rigid) and three common frame styles exist (i.e., the box
frame, the cantilever frame, and the T or I frame). The box
frame is designed to be strong and sturdy, allowing mini-
WHEELCHAIR ENGINEERING 3
mal deflection under normal loading (see Fig. 1). The
cantilever frame, named for its semblance to a single
beam pivoting about the rear axle, is designed to allow
more flexibility, less conspicuous, and easier to make (see
Fig. 2). The T or I frame, depending on the existence of an
additional footrest tube (which forms the ‘‘I’’), is designed
with minimal tubing to provide a lighter, more maneuver-
able ride and is typically used for sports (see Fig. 4).
Folding mechanisms for wheelchair frames are typi-
cally available in three styles (i.e., cross-brace, parallel-
brace, and forward-folding). The cross-brace mechanism is
the most common and can be found on depot wheelchairs
and on the majority of folding-frame rehabilitation wheel-
chairs. It consist of two frame members that are attached
to opposite sides of the frame at the bottom, crossed and
bolted together in the middle, and attached to the seat
upholstery at the top. The design provides adequate
support for the user and allows the wheelchair to collapse
together by pulling upwards on the upholstery. The par-
allel-brace mechanism is designed to fold the frame side-
ways by removing the locking pin located under the seat.
This design allows the wheelchair to fold a slight amount
while a user is in it, thereby reducing the width and
allowing the user to negotiate narrow places. Although it
feels more like a rigid wheelchair, it is more difficult to
operate and maintain. The forward-folding wheelchair is
designed to provide the stability and support of a rigid
wheelchair and the transportability of a folding wheel-
chair. A specially designed hinge system, located under
the front of the seat, allows the lower part of the frame to
collapse onto itself. By folding down the backrest and
removing the rear wheels, the entire wheelchair is very
compact. One particular design, developed at the Human
Engineering Research Laboratories, University of Pitts-
burgh, features an additional set of rear wheels that,
when folded down, allow the user to remove the rear
wheels while seated in the wheelchair (8) (see Fig. 5a
and 5b). It was designed to permit easier travel down the
Figure 4. Tennis wheelchair (T-frame).
4 WHEELCHAIR ENGINEERING
aisle of an airplane and can be folded and stored in the
overhead compartment.
2.3. Wheels, Pushrims, and Casters
The choice of wheels and casters can impact the look,
weight, and performance of a wheelchair. Wheels are
available in two styles: spoked and MAG. MAG wheels,
typically made from PVC or ABS plastic, offer better
durability; however, spoked wheels are lighter and more
popular with active users. Both are available in a variety
of sizes, most commonly 22, 24, and 26 inches, and can be
fitted with either solid tires (puncture-proof) or pneumatic
tires. Pneumatic tires are often preferred because they are
lighter and offer better shock absorption and grip than
solid tires.
Connected to the outer edge of each wheel is a pushrim.
A pushrim is a metal or plastic ring designed to allow the
user to effectively propel the wheelchair. It is typically a
smooth ring made from polished aluminum or steel tub-
ing; however, it can be coated or have protrusions to better
accommodate people with limited hand function. Other
accommodations have been introduced by the ergonomic
pushrim. The ergonomic pushrim was designed to improve
wheelchair propulsion biomechanics and reduce the in-
cidences of carpal tunnel syndrome (9). It is composed of
two concentric tubes, which provide a wider grip and
larger surface area for breaking, as well as a strip of
high-friction coating, placed between the pushrim and the
tire, for improved breaking.
Casters are available in a variety of sizes ranging from
2 to 8 inches. Larger casters provide better ground clear-
ance (i.e., raise the user higher off the ground), but often at
the expense of foot clearance. Therefore, smaller casters
are often used to prevent interference with the footrest(s)
and the feet of the user. Casters are either pneumatic or
polyurethane. Caster forks typically consist of a stem (to
connect to the wheelchair frame) and aluminum or steel
housing. In an effort to reduce the transmission of harmful
vibrations through the caster housing, suspension caster
forks have been developed. Suspension caster forks use
either a flexible plastic housing or an elastomer to dampen
oscillations. Current efforts are underway to improve the
capability of the suspension caster fork by positioning the
elastomer at an oblique angle to the caster housing and
through the design of a pneumatic caster fork suspension
system (10).
Figure 5. (a) Folding chair developed at Hu-
man Engineering Research Laboratories,
University of Pittsburgh. (b) Folding chair
design.
2.4. Components
Other typical components of the manual wheelchair in-
clude footrests and legrests, armrests or clothing guards,
and wheel locks. With the exception of foot-drive wheel-
chairs, all wheelchairs come equipped with footrests to
support the feet and lower legs of the user. Depot wheel-
chairs use swing-away footrests to permit easier transfers
to and from the wheelchair, and to allow the wheelchair to
fold for storage or transportation. These footrests often
include heel straps to prevent rearward slippage of the
feet and can be equipped with swing-away legrests for
added leg support. Rigid wheelchairs use a single tubular
footrest. It is smaller, lighter, and more durable than
swing-away types, to better accommodate active users.
They often include leg straps, which provide a backing to
help prevent the legs and feet of the user from slipping off
the footrest.
Armrests can be added to any wheelchair to provide
additional upper limb support and comfort. They also
protect the clothing of the user from getting caught in
the wheels. Active users seldom use armrests, because of
the interference they pose to propulsion; therefore, cloth-
ing guards are used to protect the clothing of the user.
Wheel locks are another feature often seen on depot
and assistant-propelled wheelchairs, but are not used as
often by active users. They serve as parking brakes for a
wheelchair, allowing users to safely reach, transfer, or
perform other activities that require added stability.
2.5. The Future of Manual Wheelchair Design
Wheelchair design will continue to evolve to meet the
changing needs and demands of people with disabilities.
Over the past few years, wheelchairs have become stron-
ger, lighter, and more affordable. The main reason for this
improvement has been the increasing popularity of tita-
nium. Every major wheelchair manufacturer has incorpo-
rated titanium into its design. The reduced weight of
titanium is a major selling point for this new line of
wheelchairs. Unlike automobiles, which greatly outweigh
their passengers, wheelchairs typically only represent a
fraction of the weight of their users. Therefore, every
additional pound can noticeably reduce the maneuver-
ability and response of the wheelchair. Titanium has a low
density and, unlike composite materials, which are very
strong and very brittle, it demonstrates superior durabil-
ity. This combination has lead to the overwhelming push
 WHEELCHAIR ENGINEERING 5

toward titanium wheelchair design. For users seeking 3.2. Designs

stronger, more agile frames, titanium wheelchairs offer
Hub-crank, lever-drive, and hand-crank propulsion all
the best solutions.
have certain benefits over PRP. They allow for a more
Another focus of future wheelchair design will be the
ergonomically beneficial arm, wrist, and hand position
optimum integration of suspension. Current manual sus-
(11). They do not require that the user remove their hands
pension wheelchairs have not proven to be any more
from the propulsion mechanism, allowing force to be
durable or more capable of reducing shock vibrations,
exerted in both a push direction and a pull direction.
experienced during curb descents, than standard ultra-
PRP only accommodates force in one direction. Several
lightweight wheelchairs (7). Another complication with
benefits exist of the continuous motion and contact with
suspension manual wheelchairs is their tendency to ‘‘dol-
the propulsion mechanism. A larger number of muscles
phin’’ or lower because of the compression of the suspen-
(both flexor and extensor) are used, thus reducing strain
sion element upon propulsion, which takes energy away
on individual muscles and joints (12). No peak impact
from propulsion and reduces the energy efficiency of the
forces in joints and muscles occur because of the contin-
wheelchair. On the other hand, caster-based suspension
uous cycle of the hand on the propulsion mechanism and
has demonstrated reliable vibration reduction; however,
the almost continuous force application. Idle periods are
efforts are still ongoing to create a better means of absorb-
reduced in the propulsion cycle during which no force is
ing vibrations transmitted through the caster fork from
produced. (During a typical push rim cycle, force is
bumps and other raised obstacles. It is believed that these
generated during only 20% of the cycle time.) Additionally,
types of obstacles produce more horizontally traveling
the lever drive and hand cycle have the added benefit of
vibrations and thus require a more sophisticated system
keeping the hand and mechanical interface within the
(10). Whatever the approach, efforts are constantly under-
visual field of the user, which seems to improve motor
way to improve the safety and ride comfort of manual
control.
wheelchairs.
3.3. Hub Crank
3. HAND CYCLES
The hub-crank mechanism (see Fig. 6a) consists of hub-
connected cranks attached to the wheel hubs of a manual
Hand cycles are one type of manual alternative to hand
wheelchair. The device allows the user to crank in a
rim-propelled wheelchairs. An estimated 90% of all wheel-
continuous motion, directly transferring force to the
chairs are hand-rim propelled, which is a physically
wheels. Hub-crank propulsion allows for a more ergono-
straining activity that can lead to repetitive strain injuries
mically correct hand-grip position than is possible on a
in the upper body and secondary disability. For wheelchair
push rim (12). Its primary use has been in wheelchair
users, secondary disability can lead to a sedentary lifestyle
racing.
and risk for cardiovascular problems, decubitous ulcers,
and other health problems. The efficiency of push rim
3.4. Lever Drive
propulsion (PRP) and alternative manual propulsion
methods can be increased with ergonomically good body During lever-drive propulsion (see Fig. 6b), the hands
position, proper wheelchair fitting, and appropriate choice make a cyclic motion, pushing and pulling, either syn-
of propulsion method given the capabilities of the wheel- chronic or asynchronic in a sagittal plane ventral to the
chair user. No alternative design has yet emerged to subject. A lever mechanism transfers force indirectly to
replace PRP entirely. the wheels during both the push stroke and the pull
stroke. The length of the lever can generally be adjusted
3.1. Overview of Propulsion Methods to accommodate the user’s need. Recent lever mechanisms
have the features of a reverse drive, internal brake, and
Lever-drive and hub-crank propulsion mechanisms are
gearing.
less straining, more efficient manual propulsion methods
Van der Woude et al. (13) conducted a study on the
than PRP and may prove beneficial for overuse problems
effect of mechanical advantage of a lever-driven tricycle.
in the arms. Neither method, however, is as easy to
Mechanical advantage (MA) was varied through changing
maneuver as the push rim and, thus, not practical for
the gear ratio and adjusting the length of the lever arm,
indoor use. They are difficult to steer, complicated to
which had a significant effect on oxygen uptake, energy
brake, and may have increased width. In terms of me-
cost, mechanical efficiency, and stroke frequency. Van der
chanical efficiency, however, the lever-drive and hub-
Woude et al. concluded that the ability to change MA
crank mechanisms surpass PRP.
might help wheelchair users accommodate to different
Hand cycling (hand-crank propulsion) has gained more
external conditions (13).
popularity than the hub crank and lever drives in recent
years. People with disabilities have The disabled popula-
3.5. Hand Cycles
tion has become more active, health conscious, and physi-
cally fit, and hand cycles have emerged as a recreation As in the bicycle market, a wide variety of hand cycles are
option for these active individuals. Hand cycling has also available; lightweight semirecumbent road-racing models,
found use in developing countries where individuals may upright-cruiser models, and rugged mountain-climbing
need to travel over longer distances and rougher terrain titanium models. Therapeutically, hand cycling is benefi-
than possible in a manual wheelchair. cial because it strengthens different muscles than the
6 WHEELCHAIR ENGINEERING

Figure 6. (a) Hub crank diagram. (b) Lever

(a) (b) drive diagram.

(MWCU) manual wheelchair user would normally in their

wheelchair. Hand cycling also relieves wrist and shoulder
strain caused by PRP and improves cardiovascular
strength. On a qualitative level, hand cycling broadens
the wheelchair user’s experience by allowing them to
travel longer distances with less effort than possible in a
MWC and allowing them to ride alongside bicycles, thus
reintegrating the MWCU into family/ social activities.
Although hand cycling has emerged as an alternative to
racing wheelchairs in recent years, hand cycles cannot
replace MWCs in daily life because they cannot be used
indoors or on sidewalks.
Hand cycles are most often tricycles, although two-
wheeled designs, with outriggers for stability, are avail-
able. Two primary styles of three-wheeled hand cycles are
most popular: upright (see Fig. 7) and semirecumbent (see
Fig. 8). Upright cycles are easier for wheelchair users to Figure 7. Upright hand cycle.
transfer into because the seat height is comparable with
that of a wheelchair, but these cycles are less stable at
high speeds and around curves. The semirecumbent style
is more stable and able to reach higher speeds. Arm-crank
add-on units for manual wheelchairs are also available,
although less widely used than dedicated hand cycles.
Many semirecumbent style cycles now include similar
design features to high-end bicycles; disk brake for high-
speed braking, wide gear range, ergonomic handles, light-
weight tubing for shock absorption, shock absorbers be-
tween the seat frame and main frame, ergonomic seating,
and bicycle components.
Smith et al. (14) compared a custom hand cycle with a
standard wheelchair and found that the cardiopulmonary
responses of both people with paraplegia and unimpaired Figure 8. Semirecumbent hand cycle.
subjects were lower with the arm-crank wheelchair. The
arm-crank wheelchair required less energy on level hall-
ways than the standard wheelchair in all three gears. The leads to more efficient propulsion systems. The challenge
VO2 consumption rate was about 30% lower and the heart for the manual wheelchair remains to design a system
rate about 16–19% lower for the arm-crank wheelchair. that is as lightweight, compact, and intuitive to maneuver
The possible use of large numbers of gears and the use of as a push rim.
different cranking modes (synchronic versus asynchronic)
also benefit the user by accommodating to their ability.
Hub-crank, lever-drive, and hand-crank systems de- 4. PUSHRIM-ACTIVATED POWER-ASSISTED
monstrate the potential for a manual drive system that WHEELCHAIRS
increases mechanical advantage, speed, comfort, and
health for the wheelchair user. The combination of more A pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchair (PAPAW)
ergonomically correct body position and gear systems uses motors and a battery to augment the power applied

by the users to one or both pushrims during propulsion or
braking (see Fig. 9). Applying a torque to the pushrim
activates the wheelchair. The torque applied to the push-
rim is amplified by the motors and gear train. A micro-
controller controls each of the rear wheels. Software
simulates inertia (i.e., allows the wheels to coast between
strokes), compensates for discrepancies between the two
wheels (e.g., differences in friction), and provides an
automatic braking system activated when applying a
reverse torque to the pushrims (15). A PAPAW is typically
assembled by retrofitting an ultra-light manual wheel-
chair with the PAPAW wheels and some customized hard-
ware. Most PAPAW wheels use quick-release axles (i.e.,
axles that allow the wheels to be removed without tools).
Most PAPAWs will accommodate standard wheelchair
wheels in order to serve as a manual wheelchair as well.
The PAPAW represents an entirely new class of wheel-
chair.
Many people exist who have difficulty effectively pro-
pelling a manual wheelchair because of pain, low cardio-
pulmonary reserves, insufficient arm strength, or the
inability to maintain a posture effective for propulsion
(16). Until recently, people who were unable to effectively
propel a manual wheelchair would be presented with the
options of using an electric-powered wheelchair, using a
scooter, or being pushed by an assistant in their manual
wheelchair. The PAPAW provides a fourth alternative that
may be of substantial benefit to some clients.
The electronic controls of a PAPAW are commonly
selectable. The electronic controls can be used to set the
sensitivity of the pushrims (i.e., to alter the amount of
assistance provided by the motors). On some devices, it is
possible to adjust the sensitivity of the left and right wheel
independently, which is advantageous for people with
Figure 9. Pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchair (PA-
PAW).
WHEELCHAIR ENGINEERING 7
strength imbalance or motor coordination issues. It has
been proposed that a PAPAW could be used for training
arm movement postcerebral vascular accident in order to
gain greater strength and coordination. The maximum
speed, maximum braking, and acceleration are also pos-
sible to adjust with a PAPAW. Selecting the settings for the
electronic controls of a PAPAW should follow a similar
process to that of adjusting an electric-powered wheel-
chair.
The electric-powered wheelchair is poised to undergo
revolutionary design changes. Although devices like the
PAPAW represent important advances for people whose
abilities balance between using a manual wheelchair and
an electric-powered wheelchair, many more people could
benefit from advances in electric-powered wheelchairs.
Indeed, people with disabilities and people who are elderly
are becoming more empowered to insist on maintaining or
increasing independence and mobility, which has
prompted the investigation of technologies that will ne-
gotiate uneven terrain, traverse stairs, and detect obsta-
cles in the environment.
5. SCOOTERS
Scooters are power bases with a mounted seat and handle
bar steering system. Scooter power bases are available in
three-wheel and four-wheel drive options. Three-wheel
scooters are recommended if the user requires maneuver-
ability within the home as well as outside mobility on a
semilevel surface. Four-wheeled scooter offer more stabi-
lity and are, therefore, best for active outdoor driving. A
standard scooter seat is similar to that used on a tractor or
fishing boat. If increased seating support and comfort is
required, then a captain-style seating option is available.
Scooter seats are often removable to simplify transporta-
tion in a personal automobile. The scooter is usually
operated using a tiller (e.g., handlebar) steering system.
The speed is controlled electronically and direction is
controlled manually. Most scooters allow the steering
column to fold in order to make the scooter easier to
transport in a personal vehicle.
6. ELECTRIC-POWERED WHEELCHAIRS
6.1. Types of Electric-Powered Wheelchairs
Powered wheelchairs can be grouped into several classes
or categories. The most common groupings are based on
the functions provided by the wheelchair and the intended
use. A convenient grouping by intended use is primarily
indoor, both indoor/outdoor, and active indoor/outdoor.
Indoor wheelchairs have a small footprint (i.e., area con-
necting the wheels), which allows them to be maneuver-
able in confined spaces. However, they may not have the
stability or power to negotiate obstacles outdoors. Indoor/
outdoor powered wheelchairs are used by people who wish
to have mobility at home, school, work, and in the com-
munity, but who stay on finished surfaces (e.g., sidewalks,
driveways, flooring). Both indoor and indoor/outdoor
8 WHEELCHAIR ENGINEERING
wheelchairs conserve weight by using smaller batteries,
which, in turn, reduces the range for travel.
Some wheelchair users want to drive over unstructured
environments, travel long distances, and move fast. Active
indoor/outdoor wheelchairs may be best suited for these
individuals. The active indoor/outdoor-use wheelchairs
include those with suspension and use of a power base
design. The power base consists of the motors, drive
wheels, castors, controllers, batteries, and frame. The
seating system (e.g., seat, backrest, armrests, legrests,
and footrests) is a separate integrated unit. Often, seating
systems from one manufacturer are used on a power base
from another manufacturer.
Power wheelchair bases can be classified as rear-wheel
drive (RWD), mid-wheel drive (MWD), or front-wheel
drive (FWD). The classification of these three drive sys-
tems is based on the drive wheel location relative to the
systems center of gravity (CoG). The drive wheel position
defines the basic handling characteristic of any power
wheelchair. All three systems have unique driving and
handling characteristics. In RWD power bases, the drive
wheels are behind the user’s center of gravity and the
casters are in the front. RWD systems are the traditional
design and, therefore, many long-term power wheelchairs
are familiar with their performance and prefer them to
other designs. A major advantage of RWD systems is its
predictable drive characteristic and stability. A potential
drawback to a RWD system is its maneuverability in tight
areas because of a larger turning radius.
In MWD power bases, the drive wheels are directly
below the user’s CoG and generally have a set of casters or
antitippers in front and rear of the drive wheels. The
advantage of the MWD system is a smaller turning radius
to maneuver in tight spaces. A disadvantage is a tendency
to rock or pitch forward, especially with sudden stops or
fast turns. When transitioning from a steep slope to a level
surface (like coming off a curb cut), the front and rear
casters can hang up leaving less traction on the drive
wheels in the middle.
A FWD power base has the drive wheels in front of the
user’s CoG, and it tends to be quite stable and provides a
tight turning radius. FWD systems may climb obstacles or
curbs more easily as the large front wheels hit the obstacle
first. A disadvantage is that a FWD system has more
rearward CoG; therefore, the system may tend to fishtail
and be difficult to drive in a straight line, especially on
uneven surfaces.
6.2. Power Wheelchair Interfaces
Individuals with many types of disabilities use electric-
powered wheelchairs for mobility. These people use differ-
ent types of control interfaces to operate powered wheel-
chairs. Gerller (17) designed the first powered wheelchair
in 1953. He installed a motor and chain-driven drive
wheel on a standard manual wheelchair between the front
casters, the chair fitted with geared motors, and automo-
bile batteries. These single-motor designs either required
the operator to have sufficient hand strength to operate a
steering tiller or used solenoid-operated drive engage-
ments to apply power to only one wheel during a turn.
The joystick is the primary control interface between the
user and the chair. The most common means of driving an
electric-powered wheelchair is to use a joystick operated
by hand or arm motion. For people who have a high-level
spinal cord injury, quadriplegia often results, which is the
paralysis of the arms, legs, and body muscles. People with
quadriplegics are, therefore, almost entirely dependent on
their remaining voluntary active muscles, which are
usually those that control the head and neck motion. In
these situations, choosing a control interface and a control
site (e.g., hand, foot, tongue, chin, and shoulder) requires a
great deal of evaluation and consideration.
6.3. Proportional Position-Sensing Joystick
The most common commercially available joystick in use
today is a position-sensing joystick (PSJ), which is a
proportional input device that controls the chair speed
and direction according to the extent of joystick displace-
ment (see Fig. 10). Operating this type of joystick requires
fine-motor control and a certain amount of strength to
displace the joystick shaft.
The most common PSJs either use potentiometers to
vary the resistance or inductors to vary a voltage. Others
use switches or optical sensors to determine shaft position.
An optical joystick requires the user to interrupt a light
beam, which acts like a switch closure. When a person
does not have sufficient hand control to use a joystick with
their hand or arm, other anatomical control sites are
considered, often at a cost of reduced chair control. A
joystick can be modified to be used with a chin, foot, elbow,
tongue, or even a shoulder. Joysticks used in these in-
stances are typically short-throw joysticks that do not
require the range of motion of a normal joystick. Short-
throw joysticks work on the same basic principle as
regular displacement joysticks but are modified to give a
full-range output with less displacement joysticks (1/4’’ or
less).
Figure 10. Position-sensing joystick.

6.4. Switched Inputs
Spastic hypertonia is a motor disorder characterized by a
velocity-dependent increase in stretch reflexes with ex-
aggerated tendon jerks. Durability is a primary considera-
tion when choosing a control interface for a person with
this disability. Many joysticks are not robust enough to
withstand the continual abuse inflicted by strong spasms.
In this case, nonproportional controls such as switched
joystick are often used. Those people can access an array
of switches. Power on, power off, emergency, stop, forward,
as well as backward are available. This switch array can
be mounted on the wheelchair tray and accessed by the
hand, head, and chin. A scanned module is necessary to
select reverse, power on and off, driving profiles, as well as
environmental control. As switched control does not pro-
vide proportional control, which typically yields much
lower performance than other proportional joysticks, it is
still far from ideal.
6.5. Force-Sensing Control
Few viable alternatives exist to the position-sensing joy-
stick used on most electric-powered wheelchairs, which
has motivated investigation of isometric joysticks. An
isometric joystick does not use spherical or orthogonal
pivots on the base of the stick; the shaft and handle are
permanently fixed in a vertical position. The force vector
exerted by the operator’s hand becomes the magnitude
and direction of input. Figure 11 is the example of shaft
with strain gages of force-sensing joystick. The base plate
was machined from a single piece of 7036-T6 aluminum.
The force sensor consists of a 9.5-mm diameter round
ground tool steel shaft with a distance of 65 mm from the
center of the gage area to the handle mounting point. The
shaft was instrumented with a full dc strain gage bridge
using 350-ohm metal foil gages. As an isometric control
permits activation without movement, it is not necessary
for the operator to transform the intervening joint centers
of the upper extremity, which has the possible advantage
Figure 11. Force-sensing joystick.
WHEELCHAIR ENGINEERING 9
of reducing the cognitive overhead normally required to
monitor joint orientations and torques plus the inertia
generated by the mobile limb. Motion-triggered reflexes,
such as spasticity, may be less likely to occur.
Cooper et al. compared (18,19) an isometric joystick
with a conventional movement-sensing joystick for the
task of power wheelchair driving. Testing demonstrated
that experienced and inexperienced electric-powered
wheelchair users were able to effectively drive an elec-
tric-powered wheelchair, without prior practice, with the
isometric joystick. The isometric was superior to the
position-sensing joystick for driving straight and for driv-
ing in a circle. The driving dynamics of the test wheelchair
when driving backwards are similar to that of a FWD
electric-powered wheelchair when driving forward.
Hence, the isometric may yield superior forward driving
performance for FWD-powered wheelchairs. Force-sen-
sing chin-operated joystick is another choice for the dis-
abilities using chin-operated joystick (20). Generally, a
chin-operated joystick is a type of position-sensing joy-
stick. It requires user’s head movement and is usually
controlled by neck flexion, extension, and rotation. Most of
position chin-operated joystick users experience overuse
strain in their neck or jaw muscles from the repetitive
muscular exertion. Some risk exists of temporomandibu-
lar joint disease, a chronic syndrome of muscle tightness
and spasm in the facial muscles.
6.6. Voice Control
A conventional joystick can be impossible for certain
people with disabilities in controlling a powered wheel-
chair. Many profoundly disabled people have no control
over most of their voluntary motor system (arm, neck,
etc.). Voice control is an attractive option for several
reasons. One is voice control systems can be used by any
individual capable of consistent and distinguishable voca-
lizations. Voice control is potentially appropriate for a
large number of wheelchair users.
The voice control wheelchair system requires a voice
processor that converts a preselected set of sounds spoken
by the user into corresponding signals a computer can
recognize. The sounds of commands are preprogrammed
into the computer during a training session. These com-
mands serve as the basis for comparison with the user’s
command during use of the wheelchair.
Unfortunately, voice control has proven difficult to
recognize to implement within a standard power wheel-
chair. One reason is the voice control system may fail to
recognize a user’s voice. Amori (21) deals with this pro-
blem by limiting the amount of time that any command
could move the chair, reasoning that momentary com-
mands were less likely to produce collisions than latched
commands. Another drawback of this approach is the fact
that even short-lived commands can cause collisions in a
crowded area. McGuire (22) incorporated an external stop
switch into the voice control system, but some users may
lack the reflexes or coordination to activate a stop switch
in time to avoid a collision. Simpson and Levine (23)
developed a NavChair assistive wheelchair navigation
system. This NavChair prototype is based on an Everest
10 WHEELCHAIR ENGINEERING
and Jennings Lancer power wheelchair augmented with
an IBM-compatible 33-MHz 80486-based computer and an
array of 12 sonar sensors. All 12 sonar sensors are
mounted on the lap tray and face to the front or side of
the wheelchair. During operation, the NavChair system
interrupts the connection between the wheelchair’s joy-
stick and wheel motor controllers. The wheelchair opera-
tor uses voice commands to indicate the desired path of
travel, and this information is combined with information
about the wheelchair’s immediate environment (from the
sonar sensors) to identify a safe path of travel. The control
signals that correspond to this path of travel are sent to
the wheelchair motors, dictating the direction and velocity
of the wheelchair.
The NavChair’s voice control facility is based on the
Verbex SpeechCommander, a continuous-speech voice re-
cognition system that relays user commands. Prior to
operation, users train the SpeechCommander to identify
a small set of commands. During the operation, the
SpeechCommander identifies the sound signal as one of
the pretrained commands and transmits a computer code
associated with that command to the NavChair’s compu-
ter. The NavChair’s computer matches the signal from the
SpeechCommander to a specific joystick command, which
is then used to steer the chair.
7. MODELING AND CONTROL
Modeling and control are two vital tools in developing
high-tech rehabilitation devices. Appropriate mathemati-
cal models of rehabilitation systems could aid in under-
standing and predicting system behavior and further
allow control system development and design improve-
ment. Control systems are the key of rehabilitation de-
vices deciding system performance to the large extent. In
the rehabilitation field, where people with disabilities are
usually involved, it is much more important to model the
system and study the effectiveness of various control
schemes before implementing the system in human sub-
jects. In this section, we will review state-of-the-art de-
vices in rehabilitation, with a particular focus on the
modeling and control methods in rehabilitation robots
and wheelchairs. Information gathered in this study
covers our own research as well as research findings
obtained by other groups. It is our intention to convey
the knowledge of modeling methods and control algo-
rithms in rehabilitation and help readers become aware
of the status of rehabilitation technology.
7.1. Wheelchair-Mounted Robotic Arms
Rehabilitation robotics deals with advancing robotics
technology to provide people with disabilities with tools
to improve their quality of life and productivity of work
(24). Rehabilitation robots can be classified into three
groups.
- Task-specific devices: Simple electromechanical de-
vices used to perform simple tasks (e.g., powered
feeders and page turners).
- Workstation robots: The robotic manipulator could be
built into a workstation and is suitable for use in a
vocational environment.
- Wheelchair robots: Consisting of the manipulator
arm mounted on the electric-powered wheelchair,
such a robot provides the disabled person with the
facility that augments both mobility and manipula-
tion, allowing him/her to accomplish ADL (Activities
of Daily Living) tasks and vocational activities.
Two aspects of the rehabilitation robot control that affect
its functionality exist: the interface between the user and
the robot and the interface between the robot and the
objects being manipulated. Rehabilitation robots are con-
trolled by the user through typical adaptive interface (e.g.,
joystick, keypad, or sip-and-puff device). Limitations on
the sophistication of the robot’s operation exist that are
simply because the user is limited in the control he is able
to exert. Nonetheless, advanced technologies like voice
control or gesture recognition may increase the quality of
the user interface significantly. The interface between the
robot and the objects being manipulated is usually a
simple pincer-like gripper. Thus, the types of manipula-
tions that can be performed are quite limited. However, a
large portion of activities we perform in school, work, and
daily living involve pick-and-place tasks that may be
carried out even with this simple end-effector.
A number of rehabilitation robots are currently avail-
able or in development, including the RAPTOR, distrib-
uted by Applied Resources (25), the MANUS available
through Exact Dynamics (26), the KARES II developed by
the Kaist Rehabilitation Engineering Service System (27),
and ProVAR, developed at Stanford University (28).
MANUS is a well-known wheelchair-mounted seven-axis
(plus gripper) robot. It folds up into an unobtrusive
position at the side of the wheelchair and folds out when
commanded. The MANUS allows both task space control
where the user can directly control the motion of the end
effector in Cartesian coordinate and joint space control
where joints are controlled independently. KARES II is a
rehabilitation robotic system with 6 degrees of freedom
robot arm mounted on a powered wheelchair. Sensor-
based control using color vision and force/torque informa-
tion is implemented to help the system perceive the
environment. It is able to grasp an object on a table, grasp
an object on the floor, and manipulate a switch on a wall.
In Human Engineering Research Laboratories, Uni-
versity of Pittsburgh, researchers carried out some experi-
ments to determine if functional independence and ability
to perform basic tasks could be improved with the use of
the RAPTOR. Level of independence with and without the
device was recorded on 16 basic activities for 11 partici-
pants with tetraplegia. Significant improvement in task
independence as well as time it took to complete tasks
were discovered in seven activities (25). Here, we take the
RAPTOR, for example, and discuss the roles of modeling
and control in the performance of the system. The compo-
nents of the RAPTOR are shown in Fig. 12. It has four
DOF (degrees of freedom): flexion/extension and rotation
of the shoulder, flexion/extension of the elbow, and rota-
tion of the wrist. The arm kinematic model should be

Forearm Gripper
Shoulder Wrist Gripper
rotation open/close
Wrist Rotation
Elbow Joint Elbow flexion
Upper Arm
Shoulder flexion
developed so that the RAPTOR can reach objects on the
floor, on a table, turn on switches or elevator buttons, etc.
The arm kinematics includes forward kinematics and
inverse kinematics. Forward kinematics deals with the
problem of determining the end-effector position given all
joint angles. To derive forward kinematics, Denavit–Har-
tenberg (D–H) parameters including link length, twist
angle, offset, and joint angle are to be identified and
transformation matrix describing the relationships be-
tween the manipulator adjacent links are to be formu-
lated. Through forward kinematics, joint-by-joint control
can be realized. Users can specify the values of one or
more joints and watch how the end of the arm moves.
Currently, each joint of the RAPTOR is controlled inde-
pendently in the joint space, which is easy to implement,
but users have to adjust the joints frequently to position
the end-effector exactly where they want to have it. The
inverse kinematic model is necessary for the continuous
control of joints in the task space, where the required joint
angles leading to a desired end-effector position and
orientation are calculated. Users can simply set the end-
effector’s position and orientation and let the RAPTOR
follow to the destination point automatically. The inverse
kinematics problem is, in general, a difficult problem
because multiple solutions exist or no solution at all exists
for a certain configuration of the end-effector. Geometric
methods are often used to solve inverse kinematics, espe-
cially for a simple structured manipulator like RAPTOR.
The control strategy of the RAPTOR system is split into
two parts, both realized by separate input devices: control
of the wheelchair itself and the control of the robotic arm.
Hence, when the user is trying to grasp an object that is
outside the reach of the arm, he/she has to manipulate
alternately with two input devices. One possible solution
to this problem is to control the whole system (i.e., the
wheelchair and the RAPTOR) in a unified framework.
When the user is trying to reach an object beyond the
workspace of the RAPTOR, the wheelchair will move
accordingly in the direction toward the objects. In this
case, the resulting robotic system is kinematically redun-
dant with seven DOF (four for the arm and three for the
wheelchair), and a more complicated inverse kinematic
model is needed to design the control system.
WHEELCHAIR ENGINEERING 11
Base motor
Shoulder
Joint
Figure 12. Components of the RAPTOR.
Rehabilitation robots for people with disabilities often
encounter contact tasks in uncertain environments. In
order for rehabilitation robots to readily adapt to their
changing environments, advanced and practically imple-
mentable control approaches are needed. Chen et al.
presented a discrete-time impedance control scheme (29)
for a rehabilitation robot arm. The objective of impedance
control is to regulate the mechanical impedance of the arm
that relates both position and force rather than directly
controlling force or position, which ensures that a user-
specified dynamic relationship between the arm endpoint
position and the arm environment contact force can be
achieved.
Different from industrial robots that normally operated
in a structured environment with predefined tasks and
separated from human operators, rehabilitation robots
usually integrate people with disabilities and robots in
the same task, requiring certain safety aspects and special
attention to man-machine interfaces. Keates and Robin-
son discussed the role of user modeling in rehabilitation
robotics (30). They used the Model Human Processor
(MHP) to describe human-computer interaction for able-
bodied users and offered some insights about the guideline
for the maximum response time that a rehabilitation robot
system should have.
7.2. Wheelchair Controllers
Wheelchairs are among the most common rehabilitation
devices used to provide mobility to people with impaired
lower extremity function or people who have balance
disorders. A considerable amount of research and devel-
opment activity is focused on wheelchairs. As the user is in
intimate physical contact with the chair for an extended
period of time, the performance and safety of the system
are of critical importance to wheelchair users.
Modeling the wheelchair system can help understand
the mechanism and improve the design. Collins and
Kauzlarich (31) developed a dynamic model of a rear
caster manual wheelchair to study the instability pro-
blem. They conducted computer simulation based on the
model to perform a parametric study of different design
variables and found that CoG position, caster trail dis-
12 WHEELCHAIR ENGINEERING
tance, and caster pin friction have a dominant influence on
rear caster wheelchair directional control. Cooper (32)
developed a wheelchair/pilot model to analyze stability
for various dynamic situations. The models incorporate
human factors (physiology, psychology, anthropometry,
and kinesiology), wheelchair design factors (frame and
steering geometry), and environmental factors (road sur-
face orientation and visibility). Wheelchairs with three
and four wheels were simulated based on the model and
experimental data. Results show that both three- and
four-wheeled systems can be stabilized with respect to
path changes and disturbances under human control.
Three-wheeled systems are shown to be more responsive,
whereas four-wheeled systems are more stable.
With the rapid progress in electronics and other related
fields, electric-powered wheelchairs (EPWs) become avail-
able with various control schemes (33,34). The most
common control variable is speed in an EPW. During
normal operation, the wheelchair driver will apply com-
mand inputs, using a joystick or similar device, based on
his/her perception of the wheelchair’s speed and direction.
An electronic controller will then adjust the voltage to the
DC motors to attempt to achieve the desired velocity of
each motor. A typical speed control algorithm uses track-
ing or contour control to have the wheelchair automati-
cally follow the desired speed profile set by the user
regardless of terrain or slope (see Fig. 13). Hence, the
wheelchair/rider system will move at the same speed
going up an incline as it will go down for the same user-
desired speed. The same is true when comparing a smooth
surface with a rough surface. For speed control to be fully
functional, a model of the wheelchair and its critical
components must be developed and then used to imple-
ment compensation. Shung et al. (35) described a compu-
ter model of a wheelchair and its motor control circuitry.
The model simulated the wheelchair’s motion when driv-
ing on a sloping surface, and was intended to facilitate the
design of wheel velocity feedback controller. In their later
work (36), Shung et al. presented a wheelchair velocity
feedback controller based on the wheelchair model and
motor control circuitry developed in their earlier work
(35). A computer simulation study showed that the velo-
city controller made the wheelchair easier to drive under
varying road conditions.
Typically, a proportional-integral controller is used on
an EPW regardless of the chair’s parameters or the
characteristics of the driver. The control coefficient might
be selected in advance using some knowledge of the
wheelchair’s parameters and the driver’s characteristics,
therefore allowing the chair to be tailored to the particular
driver. Brown et al. (37) developed an approach that
allows the controller to be self-adaptive. The controller
direction Reference Motor Component
Joystick algorithm control model (motors,
speed (template) algorithm wheels,
gearbox)
significantly improved the performance of the system and
allowed the best control coefficients to be selected based on
the characteristics of the wheelchair and its driver.
Most control systems in use today, with the notable
exception of wheelchairs, incorporate regulation of ‘‘un-
certainties’’ or ‘‘perturbations.’’ The uncertainties may
include dynamics that are neglected in order to make
the model tractable; nonlinearities that are too compli-
cated or poorly understood; and parameters that are
unknown or are imprecise because of variations in the
final product or the quality of the measurements. Robust
control deals with the analysis and design of algorithms
and methods to address these uncertainties and perturba-
tions. A useful paradigm applied with robust control has a
nominal finite-dimensional, linear time-invariant system
with the perturbation or uncertainty in the feedback loop.
We have developed the kinematic (Equation 1) and dy-
namic model (Equation 2) of an EPW system (see Fig. 14)
and verified them through experiments (38). We further
developed a Lyapunov functional-based robust controller
based on the EPW model to improve the safety and efficacy
of EPWs in the face of parameters variations and external
disturbances (39). Computer simulation showed the effi-
cacy of the proposed controller.
8. ADVANCED MOBILITY DEVICES
Research on advanced mobility systems have yielded some
novel wheelchair prototypes as well as products, which
inevitably incorporated complicated control systems (40–
42). The IBOTTM, an advanced mobility device, incorpo-
rates a variety of sensors and actuators for dynamic
stabilization of the device, speed control, self-diagnosis,
and for changing operational functions. The actuators and
sensors allow the IBOTTM to respond to changes in
terrain, which cause changes in the occupant’s CoG. A
fault-tolerant control scheme has been implemented on
the IBOTTM, where three redundant computers help to
maintain stability and the IBOTTM operates by using a
voting process to determine the actions of the device (40).
Figure 15 shows the balance mode of the IBOTTM.
The Independence 3000 IBOT Transporter (IBOT) has
probably garnered the most attention for its innovations
in dynamic stabilization that provide it with a unique
combination of capabilities. The IBOT incorporates a
variety of sensors and actuators for dynamic stabilization
of the device, speed control, self-diagnosis, and for chan-
ging operational functions (43). The actuators and sensors
allow the IBOT to respond to changes in terrain, which
cause deviations in the occupant’s CoG with respect to the
device. Three redundant computers help to maintain
stability, provide the user with control, and assure safe
External
disturbance Actual
speed/
heading
Kinematic/
Dynamic Wheelchair
model of the
wheelchair Figure 13. Powered wheelchair velocity con-
trol sheme.
 WHEELCHAIR ENGINEERING 13

xC cos − d sin
v (1)
q = yC = sin d cos

 0 1
Y YC
--v and  are the linear and angular velocities.
XC
M(q)q + C(q,q)q + F(q) +
d = B(q)
- AT(q) (2)
d m 0 mdsin
C
P M(q) = 0 m − mdcos
2b mdsin − mdcos I
md 2cos cos cos
 2rw 1
C(q,q) = md 2sin B(q) = sin sin
rw
X 0 b −b
A(q) = [ − sin cos − d ]

∈R 2×1: the input torque vector;

d ∈R 3×1 : the bounded unknown disturbances
Figure 14. Wheelchair model diagram.

Figure 15. IBOTTM balance function.

operation. The IBOT command and control computers use
a voting process to determine the actions of the device in
response to requests from the user or changes in device
status. The IBOT software also records the operation of
the device and maintains an operations log, useful for
maintenance. An important feature of the IBOT is that the
device contains an internal modem that allows commu-
nication with the manufacturer or a service representa-
tive at a distance, which provides the potential to
download logs to determine whether periodic maintenance
is necessary and to upload software changes. Structurally,
the IBOT is based on a chair mounted through linkages to
a wheeled base. The IBOT drive train includes four
primary wheels, each controlled through its own set of
electric motors, and two caster wheels. The two sets of
drive wheels on either side of the chair form a cluster.
Each cluster may rotate about its central axis while the
wheels may rotate about their hubs; this flexibility allows
the IBOT to traverse nonuniform surfaces, inclines, and to
climb curbs. The user operates an IBOT via a position-
sensing joystick and a user control panel containing
several buttons attached to the armrest. In a study by
Cooper et al., subjects reported using the IBOT to perform
a variety of activities including holding eye-level discus-
sions with colleagues and shopping by balancing on two
wheels, going up and down steep ramps, traversing out-
door surfaces (e.g., grass, dirt trails), and climbing curbs
(40). The balance and four-wheel drive functions were
found to be most helpful. The IBOT required attention to
control in standard function. The seat height was too high
for most tables and desks, and it was challenging to use
the IBOT in the bathroom. The IBOT was a functional
mobility device, its greatest strengths are outdoors and in
circumstances where space exists to use balance function
(40). Other stair-climbing and curb negotiating devices
have also been investigated. Lawn et al. have reported on
an electric-powered wheeled mobility device that can
negotiate stairs and ingress/egress into a motor vehicle
(44). Krovi and Kumar have described the investigation
into combing the use of robotic legs with a wheeled device
to provide increased mobility to people with disabilities
(42). Their device was intended to assist with climbing
curbs and uneven terrain. Future advances in controls
may benefit from learning from nature and how insects
negotiate rough terrain (45).
A number of computer-controlled wheelchairs have
been developed in recent years, including the NavChair
(46), TinMan (47), Wheelesley (48), and Walky (49).
Wheelchair systems with customized user interfaces, sen-
sors, and controllers, suitably integrated, can potentially
make the operation of a wheelchair much simpler and
make it more accessible to people with disabilities. Such
14 WHEELCHAIR ENGINEERING
chairs may use a wide variety of sensors ranging from
ultrasonic range sensors, cameras, encoders, acceler-
ometers, and gyroscopes. Suitable control algorithms as-
sist the user in avoiding obstacles, following features such
as walls, planning collision-free paths, and traveling
safely in cluttered environments with minimal user input.
Shared control is the common control scheme used by
these systems (50–52), where several operation modes are
usually provided to ensure different degrees of the control
shared by the user and the wheelchair. Levine, Yoder, and
Simpson have reported on combing obstacle detection and
avoidance with an electric-powered wheelchair (46,52,53).
They use a combination of ultrasound and infrared sen-
sors to map the environment and provide assistance with
guidance and control of an electric-powered wheelchair for
people who have visual as well as lower-limb impairments.
This line of research shows promise for helping people who
are elderly to maintain independent mobility. Jorgensen
and Garbini (41) proposed a new type of wheelchair in the
form of a two-wheeled coincident-axle-mounted double-
inverted pendulum, capable of traversing irregular ter-
rain, ramps, and staircases. The device is actively stabi-
lized by torques applied between the components at the
pivot joints, through a feedback control system.
9. SUMMARY
Wheelchairs provide an important source of mobility for
individuals with disabilities. Through the use of a wheel-
chair, people are able to participate in a wide variety of
activities in their communities. Despite the fact that
wheelchairs have been under development for nearly a
thousand years, their remains much to be learned. Ad-
vances in materials, electronics, and manufacturing tech-
niques all contribute to continuous improvements in
wheelchairs. As wheelchairs advance, their similarities
to the traditional wheelchair diminish and their func-
tional capacity increases, which has partially contributed
to the expanding number of wheelchair users. As wheel-
chair technology becomes more functional and enabling in
appearance and capability, they help to expand the popu-
lation of wheelchair users, be it through providing mobi-
lity to individuals where previous products were
inadequate or by subverting other means of mobility.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. R. A. Cooper, Rehabilitation Engineering Applied to Mobility
and Manipulation. Bristol, United Kingdom: Institute of
Physics Press, 1995.
2. R. A. Cooper, Wheelchairs: A Guide to Selection and Config-
uration. New York: Demos Medical Publishers, 1998.
3. R. A. Cooper, J. Gonzalez, B. L. Lawrence, A. J. Rentschler, M.
L. Boninger, and D. P. VanSickle, Performance of selected
lightweight wheelchairs on ANSI/RESNA tests. Arch. Phys.
Med. Rehabil. 1997; 78:1138–1144.
4. ANSI/RESNA. American National Standard for Wheelchairs,
vol. 1. Requirements and Test Methods for Wheelchairs (In-
cluding Scooters). 1998.
5. S. G. Fitzgerald, R. A. Cooper, M. L. Boninger, and A. J.
Rentschler, Comparison of fatigue life for three types of
manual wheelchairs. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2001;
82(10):1484–1488.
6. M. J. Griffin, Handbook of Human Vibrations. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press, 1990.
7. A. M. Kwarciak, R. A. Cooper, and E. J. Wolf, Effectiveness of
rear suspension in reducing shock exposure to manual wheel-
chair users during curb descents. Proc. RESNA Annual
Conference, 2002: 365–367.
8. C. Blauch, R. A. Cooper, W. Ammer, M. McCartney, T. A.
Corfman, and J. Duncan, Design of a forward folding ultra-
light wheelchair. Proc. RESNA Annual Conference, 2002:
300–302.
9. M. A. Baldwin, The Biomechanical Analysis of an Ergonomic
Manual Wheelchair Pushrim, PhD thesis, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 1997.
10. C. Blauch, R. A. Cooper, W. Ammer, M. McCartney, T. A.
Corfman, and E. J. Wolf, Design of an oblique angled suspen-
sion fork for wheelchairs. Proc. RESNA Annual Conference,
2002: 297–299.
11. J. Gangelhoff, L. Cordain, A. Tucker, and J. Sockler, Metabolic
and heart rate responses to submaximal arm lever and crank
ergometry. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 1988; 69:101–105.
12. L. Van der Woude, E. Karnen, G. Ariens, R. H. Rozendal, and
H. E. J. Veeger, Physical strain and mechanical efficiency in
hubcrank and handrim wheelchair propulsion. J. Med. Eng.
Techn. 1995; 19:123–131.
13. L. H. V. Van der Woude, E. Botden, I. Vriend, and D. Veeger,
Mechanical advantage in wheelchair lever propulsion: effect
on physical strain and efficiency. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 1997;
34(3):286–294.
14. P. A. Smith, R. M. Glaser, J. S. Petrofsky, P. D. Underwood, G.
B. Smith, and J. J. Richard, Arm crank vs. handrim wheel-
chair propulsion: metabolic and cardiopulmonary responses.
Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1983; 64:249–254.
15. R. A. Cooper, T. A. Corfman, S. G. Fitzgerald, M. L. Boninger,
D. M. Spaeth, W. Ammer, and J. Arva, Performance assess-
ment of a pushrim activated power assisted wheelchair. IEEE
Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2002; 10(1):121–126.
16. J. Arva, S. G. Fitzgerald, R. A. Cooper, and M. L. Boninger,
Mechanical efficiency and user power requirement with a
pushrim activated power assisted wheelchair. Med. Eng.
Phys. 2001; 23:699–705.
17. V. R. Gerller, Wheel chair adapted for optional operation by
power or manually. U.S. Patent, 2,635,703, 1953.
18. R. A. Cooper, D. K. Jones, S. G. Fitzgerald, M. L. Boninger,
and S. J. Albright, Analysis of position and isometric joysticks
for powered wheelchair driving. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng.
2000; 47(7):902–910.
19. R. A. Cooper, D. M. Spaeth, D. K. Jones, M. L. Boninger, S. G.
Fitzgerald, and S. F. Guo, Comparison of virtual and real
electric powered wheelchair driving using a position sensing
joystick and an isometric joystick. Med. Eng. Phys. 2002;
24(10):703–708.
20. S. F. Guo, R. A. Cooper, M. L. Boninger, A. M. Kwarciak, and
W. Ammer, Development of power wheelchair chin-operated
force-sensing joystick. Proc. 24th Annual International Con-
ference of the EMBS-BMES, 2002: 351–352.
21. R. Amori, VOCOMOTION: an intelligent voice-control system
for powered wheelchairs. Proc. 15th Annual RESNA Confer-
ence, 1992: 421–423.

22. W. McGuire, Voice operated wheelchair using digital proces-
sing technology. Proc. 22nd Annual RESNA Conference, 1999:
364–366.
23. R. C. Simpson and S. P. Levine, Voice control of a powered
wheelchair. IEEE Trans. Neu. Sys. Rehab. Eng. 2002; 10:122–
125.
24. G. Bolmsjo, H. Neveryd, and H. Eftring, Robotics in rehabi-
litation. IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng. 1995; 3:77–83.
25. E. Chaves, A. M. Koontz, S. Garber, R. A. Cooper, and A. L.
Williams, Clinical evaluation of a wheelchair mounted robotic
arm. Proc. RESNA Annual Conference, 2003 [CD-ROM].
26. G. Verburg, M. Milner, S. Naumann, J. Bishop, and O. Sas, An
evaluation of the MANUS wheelchair-mounted manipulator.
Proc. RESNA 1992 Annual Conference, 1992: 602–604.
27. W. K. Song, H. Y. Lee, J. S. Kim, Y. S. Yoon, and Z. Bien,
KARES: intelligent rehabilitation robotic system for the
disabled and the elderly. Proc. IEEE International Confer-
ence on Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 1998:
2682–2685.
28. H. F. M. Van Der Loos, J. J. Wagner, N. Smaby, K. Chang et
al., ProVAR assistive robot system architecture. Proc. IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1999:
741–746.
29. S. Chen, W. Harwin, and T. Rahman, The application of
discrete-time adaptive impedance control to rehabilitation
robot manipulator. Proc. IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, 1996: 636–642.
30. L. S. Keates and P. Robinson, The role of user modeling in
rehabilitation robotics. Proc. Fifth International Conference
on Rehabilitation Robotics, 1997: 75–78.
31. T. J. Collins and J. J. Kauzlarich, Directional stability of rear
caster wheelchairs. J. Rehabil. Res. Develop. 1988; 25(3):1–18.
32. R. A. Cooper, Stability of a wheelchair controlled by a human
pilot. IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng. 1993; 1(4):193–206.
33. R. A. Cooper, Intelligent control of power wheelchairs. IEEE
Eng. Med. Biol. Mag. 1995; 15(4):423–431.
34. R. X. Chen, L. G. Chen, and L. L. Chen, System design
consideration for digital wheelchair controller. IEEE Trans.
Indust. Electron. 2000; 47(4):898–907.
35. J. B. Shung, G. Stout, M. Tomizuka, and D. M. Auslander,
Dynamic modelling of a wheelchair on a slope. ASME J.
Dynam. Syst. Measure. Control 1983; 105:101–106.
36. J. B. Shung, M. Tomizuka, D. M. Auslander, and G. Stout,
Feedback control and simulation of a wheelchair. ASME J.
Dynam. Syst. Measure. Control 1983; 105:96–100.
37. K. E. Brown, R. M. Inigo, and B. W. Johnson, Design,
implementation, and testing of an adaptable optimal control-
ler for an electric wheelchair. IEEE Trans. Industry Applica-
tion 1990; 26(6):1144–1157.
38. D. Ding, R. A. Cooper, S. F. Guo, and T. A. Corfman, A study
on modeling an electric-powered wheelchair. Proc. RESNA
Annual Conference, 2003 [CD-ROM].
WHEELCHAIR ENGINEERING 15
39. D. Ding, R. A. Cooper, S. F. Guo, and T. A. Corfman, Robust
velocity control simulation of power wheelchairs. Proc. RE-
SNA Annual Conference, 2003 [CD-ROM].
40. R. A. Cooper, M. L. Boninger, R. Cooper, A. R. Dobson et al.,
Technical perspectives: use of the IndependenceTM 3000
IBOTTM Transporter at home and in the community. J. Spinal
Cord Med. 2003; 26(1):79–85.
41. G. H. Jorgensen and J. L. Garbini, Dynamic analysis and
control of traversing stairs with an actively stabilized wheel-
chair. Proc. IEEE/ASME International Conference on Ad-
vanced Intelligent Mechatronics, 1997: 16–20.
42. V. Krovi and V. Kumar, Modeling and control of a hybrid
locomotion system. ASME J. Mechan. Des. 1999; 121(3):448–
455.
43. D. Kamen, R. Ambrogi, and R. Heinzman, Transportation
vehicles with stability enhancement using CG modification.
U.S. Patent, 5,975,225, 1999.
44. M. Lawn, T. Sakai, M. Kuroiwa, and T. Ishimatsu, Develop-
ment and practical application of a stair-climbing wheelchair
in Nagasaki. Int. J. Human-Friendly Welfare Robotic Syst.
2001: 33–39.
45. D. L. Jindrich and R. J. Full, Dynamic stabilization of rapid
hexapedal locomotion. J. Exper. Biol. 2002; 205:2803–2823.
46. S. P. Levine, D. A. Bell, L. A. Jaros, R. C. Simpson, and Y.
Koren, The NavChair assistive wheelchair navigation sys-
tem. IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng. 1999; 7(4):443–451.
47. D. Miller and M. Slack, Design and testing of a low-cost
robotic wheelchair prototype. Autonomous Robots 1995;
2(1):77–88.
48. H. A. Yanco, A. Hazel, A. Peacock, S. Smith, and H. Winter-
mute, Initial report on Wheelesley: a robotic wheelchair
system. Proc. the Workshop on Developing AI applications
for the Disabled at the International Conference on Artificial
Intelligence, 1995.
49. H. Neveryd and G. Bolmsjo, WALKY, an ultrasonic navigat-
ing mobile robot for the disabled. Proc. Second TIDE Con-
gress. 1995: 366–370.
50. S. Fioretti, T. Leo, and S. Longhi, A navigation system for
increasing the autonomy and security of powered wheel-
chairs. IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng. 2000; 8(4):490–498.
51. D. S. Vicente, R. C. Amaya et al., TetraNauta: an intelligent
wheelchair for users with very severe mobility restrictions.
Proc. International Conference on Control Applications, 2002:
778–783.
52. J. D. Yoder, E. Baumgartner, and S. B. Skaar, Initial results in
the development of a guidance system for a powered wheel-
chair. IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng. 1996; 4(3):143–151.
53. R. C. Simpson, D. Poirot, and F. Baxter, The Hephaetstus
smart wheelchair system. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil.
Eng. 2002; 10(2):118–122.