2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR)

QEII Centre, London, UK, July 17-20, 2017.

Design and Experimental Evaluation of a Lightweight, High-Torque

and Compliant Actuator for an Active Ankle Foot Orthosis*
Marta Moltedo1 , Tomislav Baček, Kevin Langlois, Karen Junius, Bram Vanderborght and Dirk Lefeber

Abstract— The human ankle joint plays a crucial role during

walking. At the push-off phase the ankle plantarflexors generate
the highest torque among the lower limb joints during this
activity. The potential of the ankle plantarflexors is affected
by numerous pathologies and injuries, which cause a decrease
in the ability of the subject to achieve a natural gait pattern.
Active orthoses have shown to have potential in assisting these
subjects. The design of such robots is very challenging due to
the contrasting design requirements of wearability (light weight
and compact) and high torques capacity. This paper presents
the development of a high-torque ankle actuator to assist the
ankle joint in both dorsiflexion and plantarflexion. The com-
pliant actuator is a spindle-driven MACCEPA (Mechanically
Adjustable Compliance and Controllable Equilibrium Position
Actuator). The design of the actuator was made to keep its
weight as low as possible, while being able to provide high
torques. As a result of this novel design, the actuator weighs
1.18kg. Some static characterization tests were perfomed on the
actuator and their results are shown in the paper.
Fig. 1. The lightweight and high-torque ankle actuator presented in this
work. The actuator is a MACCEPA [6], thus it is compliant. This actuator
I. INTRODUCTION is an improved version of the actuator presented in [7]. The actuator weighs
1.18kg (including sensors and excluding electronics and batteries) and it was
Walking is a fundamental activity in the daily life of designed to provide a minimum peak torque of 50Nm while following the
human beings and it is one of the key factors determining angle-torque characteristic of a biological ankle during walking at 2km/h.
the quality of life. During walking the largest contributions This low speed was considered to be feasible for impaired subjects.
to the total positive power of lower limbs are provided by the
hip and the ankle joints [1], however the ankle plantarflexors
alone are the major contributors in the last stage of the stance people. Human muscles are weakened as an effect of aging,
phase, the so-called push-off phase [2]. In this phase, the and this effect is larger in ankle plantarflexors compared with
muscles acting at the ankle joint are crucial for the generation other muscle groups in the lower limbs [5].
of forward velocity, the support of the body and the initiation The use of an AFO (ankle foot orthosis) and the attendance
of the swing of the leg [2], [3]. to sessions of manual rehabilitation performed by therapists,
Several disorders or injuries, such as stroke, multiple are the conventional approaches to restore the motion capa-
sclerosis, cerebral palsy, traumas, muscular dystrophies and bility of impaired subjects. Conventional AFOs are helpful
spinal cord injuries, can reduce the human ankle joint in stabilizing the ankle of the user during stance and in
abilities, altering the walking pattern of the affected patient guaranteeing foot clearance during swing. However they do
and impacting the quality of his/her life. Stroke patients not assure a natural gait pattern since they don’t prevent
often manifest a disrupted walking pattern, represented by foot slap in the initial part of the stance phase and they
slower walking speeds, reduced joint ROM (range of motion) cannot provide adequate ankle plantarflexion moment in the
and longer stance phase compared to healthy subjects [4]. last stage of the stance phase [8], [9]. The limitations of
Furthermore, due to the reduced strength of their ankle conventional AFOs can be overcome by an AAFO (active
muscles, these patients suffer from lack of propulsion, foot ankle foot orthosis). Several research groups have developed
drop and toe drag. Slower walking speeds and smaller ankle AAFOs to assist the ankle joint of impaired subjects. An
ROM are also characteristics of the gait pattern of elderly overview of these works and their results can be found
in [10].
*The presented work was developed within the projects BioMot (Eu- An AAFO is a suitable rehabilitation and assistive device
ropean Commission’s 7th Framework Program, Grant Agreement number if it fulfills some requirements. The first requirement is
IFP7-ICT-2013-10-611695) and MIRAD (Flemish agency for Innovation by
Science and Technology, IWT-SBO 120057) and it is supported by FWO the safety of the user. Another important characteristic is
project (no.G026214N). the wearability of the device, i.e. it has to be lightweight,
1 All the authors are with the Department of Mechanical Engineer-
compact and portable. Furthermore, the ankle actuator of the
ing, Robotics & Multibody Mechanics Research Group, Vrije Uni-
versiteit Brussel, 1050 Brussel, Belgium and with Flanders Make. AAFO has to be able to provide the necessary amount of
http://mech.vub.ac.be, marta.moltedo@vub.be torque to effectively assist the user in daily life activities.

978-1-5386-2296-4/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE 283

Authorized licensed use limited to: IIT - Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia. Downloaded on November 02,2022 at 16:06:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The AAFOs developed by researches are mainly divided
into two categories: the first one has pneumatic artificial
muscles (PAM) as actuation principle [11]–[15] and the
second one is actuated by means of series elastic actuators
(SEAs) [8], [9], [16]–[18]. In general, to keep low the weight
of the AAFO, researchers chose tethered, thus not portable,
solutions. However it has to be noticed that the weight of
these devices doesn’t take into account the off-board compo-
nents (air sources, motors and controllers). For example the
PAM-actuated AAFO presented in [11] weighs only 0.95kg
and provides 110Nm and 53Nm, as peak dorsiflexion and
plantarflexion torques, respectively. Another PAM-actuated
AAFO [12] weighs 1.6kg and provides peak torques of
70Nm and 38Nm in plantarflexion and dorsiflexion, respec-
tively. Its improved version [13], made to be easier to wear
and control by the user, weighs 1.7kg but reaches lower
peak torques. A tethered lightweight (0.875kg) and high-
torque (150Nm peak plantarflexion torque) SEA-actuated
AAFO is presented in [16]. The portability of an AAFO
can be achieved at the cost of higher weight and size. For
example, a portable PAM-actuated AAFO [14] weighs 3.1kg
and provides a peak torque of only 9Nm. A portable SEA-
actuated AAFO [8], [9] can provide a peak plantarflexion
torque of 97Nm, but it weighs 2.8kg and it is bulky.
As it can be observed from these works, designing an
AAFO with a high-torque actuator, but at the same time
portable and lightweight is very challenging. The weight of
the AAFO is very critical, since the metabolic cost of loaded
walking raises with an increased weight of the load, but also
with a load placed at a more distal location [19].
The ankle actuator presented in this paper is a novel, high-
torque, lightweight, compact and compliant ankle actuator
based on the MACCEPA [6]. The MACCEPA has already
been used to actuate the joints of an assistive modular sit-
to-stand exoskeleton [20], [21]. However, the actuator used
in this exoskeleton can deliver a peak torque of 15Nm, it
weighs 1.4kg and it is 0.350m long (spanning both sides of
the joints) and 0.112m wide. To achieve a more compact
design and a better inertia distribution of the actuator, the
spindle-driven version of the MACCEPA was developed [22].
A further reduction of the dimensions of the spindle-driven
MACCEPA was achieved in the ankle actuator described
in [7], by housing the MACCEPA spring into the lever
arm. This lightweight (1.1kg) and compact (0.290m long,
spanning the joint, and 0.08m wide) actuator can provide a
peak torque of 25Nm.
The actuator presented in this paper is an improved version
of the last mentioned actuator. The main goal of its design
was to increase the torque capability of the actuator, while
limiting as much as possible the increase of weight. If
complemented by appropriate control strategies [23], this
compliant actuator has the potential to be an energy efficient
and safe solution for the actuation of an AAFO, due to
the capability of the compliant element to store and release
energy and decouple the inertia of the motor from the load.
The paper is organised as follows: Section II presents the
mechanical design of the presented actuator, Section III
284
Authorized licensed use limited to: IIT - Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia. Downloaded on November 02,2022 at 16:06:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
shows the results of some characterization tests performed
on the actuator. A conclusion about this work is given in
Section IV.
II. ANKLE ACTUATOR DESIGN
A. Design Criteria
The biological angle-torque characteristic at the ankle joint
of a healthy subject during walking at 4.7km/h is given
in Fig. 2. During this task, the ankle torque reaches a
value of 1.6Nm/kg [24] at the moment of push-off, which
corresponds to 128Nm if a subject of 80kg is considered.
This torque is the highest among the torques delivered by
the three joints of the lower limbs during walking. A subject
with a reduced capability at the ankle joint is not able to
provide the amount of torque required for daily life activities.
The amplitude and the timing of assistance needed by an
impaired subject depend on the level of weakness and on the
performed activity, as shown in [25]. According to this study,
during walking overground, subjects with 50%, 70% and
90% of muscle weakness need at the ankle joint an assistive
peak torque equal to 0.2Nm/kg, 0.7Nm/kg and 1.2Nm/kg
respectively. Considering a subject of 80kg, the required
assistive torques for these three levels of muscle weaknesses
correspond to 16Nm, 56Nm and 96Nm.
Considering these data and the experience gained from
the design of the previous version of the actuator, it was
decided to design the actuator in order to be able to provide
a minimum peak torque of 50Nm while following the angle-
torque characteristic of a biological ankle during walking.
This desired torque is twice the torque provided by the
previous version of the actuator. The natural speed of walking
overground of healthy subjects is equal to 4.7km/h, however
ANKLE ANGLE-TORQUE CHARACTERISTIC
0.2
FF
0
TO IC
-0.2
-0.4
Normalized torque [Nm/kg]
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
MD
-1.6
-1.8
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10
Ankle angle [deg]
Ankle angle [deg] for the ankle joint in healthy
Fig. 2. Biological angle-torque characteristic
subjects walking at 4.7km/h [24]. Plantarflexion is negative (both in torques
and angles) and dorsiflexion is positive. IC is the moment of the initial
contact of the foot with the ground, in which the stance phase starts; FF is
the moment in which the foot is flat on the ground; MD is the moment of
maximum dorsiflexion; TO is the moment in which the toe is lifted from
the ground and the swing phase starts.
for the design of the actuator a walking velocity of 2km/h
was considered. This speed was estimated to be feasible for
impaired subjects.
B. Conceptual design
The MACCEPA [6] is a torque-controlled, variable stiff-
ness actuator that works as a torsion spring and allows
controlling independently its equilibrium position and joint
stiffness. Fig. 3 shows the schematic drawing of the spindle-
driven MACCEPA designed for the presented ankle actuator.
In this actuator the lever arm is composed of two segments,
the spring side of the lever arm, which houses the MACCEPA
spring, and the motor side of the lever arm, which is
connected to the ballscrew through the ballscrew nut. The
two lever arm segments are rigidly connected and span the
joint axis. The MACCEPA parameters are shown in Fig. 3
and defined as follows:
• D: the length of the spring side of the lever arm;
• L: the distance from the joint axis of the attachment
point of the compression mechanism of the MACCEPA
spring;
• α: the torque-angle, i.e. the angle between the spring
side of the lever arm and the output link;
• ϕ: the equilibrium position angle, i.e. the angle between
the spring side of the lever arm and the centerline of
motor link;
• K and P: the spring constant and pre-compression.
Fig. 3. Schematic drawing of the presented spindle-driven MACCEPA for
the ankle joint of an AAFO. The MACCEPA parameters are: D and L, the
length of the spring side of the lever arm and distance from the joint axis
of the attachment point of the compression mechanism of the MACCEPA
spring, respectively; K and P, the MACCEPA spring constant and pre-
compression, respectively; α, the torque-angle exerted by the MACCEPA;
ϕ, the equilibrium position angle of the MACCEPA.
The ballscrew and the motor are hinged to the motor
link of the actuator, such that they can rotate with respect
to this link. They control the equilibrium position of the
spindle-driven MACCEPA, which is the position in which the
MACCEPA exerts no torque. This position corresponds to the
configuration in which the angle α is equal to zero, thus the
spring side of the lever arm and the output link are aligned.
285
Authorized licensed use limited to: IIT - Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia. Downloaded on November 02,2022 at 16:06:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Starting from this configuration, to change the equilibrium
position of the MACCEPA, the spindle-drive modifies the
position of the nut along the ballscrew. The ballscrew nut
is connected to the motor side of the lever arm, thus the
change in its position along the ballscrew makes the lever
arm rotate about the joint axis resulting in an increase of
the angle α and a compression of the MACCEPA spring.
The force generated by the spring compression produces a
torque which re-alignes the output link to the spring side
of the lever arm in the new equilibrium position. As in [7],
the MACCEPA spring is housed inside the spring side of
the lever arm to keep the actuator design compact. The
conventional design of the MACCEPA includes two motors,
the first one to control its equilibrium position and the second
one to control its stiffness. To keep the weight and the size
of this actuator as low as possible, it was decided to exclude
the second motor. However, the stiffness of the actuator, i.e.
the pre-compression of the spring, can be changed manually
by means of a pre-compression mechanism as explained later
in the paper.
The parameters of the MACCEPA define its angle-torque
characteristics. To determine the parameters D, L, K and
P of the presented actuator, a constrained minimization
process was performed. The goal of this process was the
minimization of the energy requirement of the MACCEPA
while mimicking a desired angle-torque characteristic. This
characteristic was defined by scaling the biological ankle
angle-torque characteristic of a healthy subject during walk-
ing (Fig. 2) in order to have a peak torque of 50Nm. The
resulting values for the MACCEPA parameters were: D =
0.069m, L = 0.095m, K = 70000N/m, P ' 0m.
All the other geometrical parameters (shown in Fig. 3)
were determined in order to keep limited the dimensions
of the actuator and the ballscrew maximal axial force and
linear velocity. The resulting values for these parameters
were DM = 0.045m, LM1 = 0.092m, LM2 = 0.021m, β
= 216◦ . Applying these values in the simulated model of
the actuator and considering a ballscrew of 0.002m pitch
and gearhead reduction 3.7:1, the necessary parameters for
the spindle-drive were calculated for the actuator to be able
to follow the desired ankle angle-torque characteristic at
2km/h as explained earlier. According to this simulation,
the maximum required linear velocity for the nut of the
ballscrew is 0.045m/s, which corresponds to a maximum
motor rotational velocity of 5050rpm. Considering a motor-
ballscrew combination with efficiency of 67%, the peak
and RMS values of the motor torque were computed to be
respectively 0.143Nm and 0.061Nm.
C. Realization
Fig. 4 shows the realization of the ankle actuator. The
motor link corresponds to the side of the actuator attached
to the shank of the user, while the output link is connected
to the foot of the user. This choice is made to have the
heavier side of the actuator above the ankle joint, since, as
said before, more distal weights are energetically expensive.
 ACTUATOR ALPHA ANGLE-TORQUE CHARACTERISTICS
100
90 P = 0%
80 P = 10%
70 P = 20%
60 P = 30%
50 P = 40%
40 P = 50%
30 P = 60%
20 P = 70%

Fig. 4. Realization of the ankle actuator. With respect to the conventional
design of the MACCEPA [6], in this actuator only the equilibrium position
can be controlled by a motor. Nevertheless the stiffness of the actuator can
be changed offline manually by means of a pre-compression mechanism
(composed of a Dyneema R rope and a worm-gear mechanism) and a
carriage system which compresses the spring.
The compliant element of the actuator was selected based
on the values obtained for the K and D parameters in
the minimization process. The length of the spring side of
the lever arm (D) is determinant in the selection of the
spring, since the spring has to be housed in it. The chosen
spring is a SODEMANN ISO die compression spring, with
constant equal to 68700N/m, a resting length of 0.051m and
maximal travel of work of 0.019m. Regarding the level of
pre-compression to be used in the actuator, it can be seen
from Fig. 5 that the torque behavior of the actuator is a
non-linear function of the torque-angle α. However, this
relationship becomes more and more linear with an increased
value of the pre-compression of the spring. Furthermore,
a different setting of the spring pre-compression leads to
a different behavior of the MACCEPA, from more stiff
(with higher levels of pre-compression) to more compliant
(with lower levels of pre-compression). The optimal stiffness
among different users may be different depending on several
factors.
The pre-compression of the MACCEPA spring is varied
by a manual pre-compression mechanism (Fig. 4), which is
composed of a Dyneema R rope and a worm-gear mechanism.
This mechanism drives a carriage system which compresses
the spring. The carriage system is composed of two plates
(top plate and bottom plate in Fig. 4) positioned at the two
extremities of the spring. The top plate is fixed at the end
of the spring side of the lever arm, while the bottom plate
is made in a T-shape and it is positioned such that the long
part is inside the spring. The Dyneema R rope passes inside a
hole in the bottom plate and the two extremities of the rope
are guided through the spring to be fixed to an axis (called
Dyneema-axis) which is connected to the pre-compression
mechanism and placed on the output link at distance L
from the joint axis (Fig. 3). When the pre-compression
mechanism turns in one direction, it makes the Dyneema-
axis rotating and wrapping the Dyneema R rope around it. In
this way the Dyneema R rope pulls the bottom plate closer
to the top plate, resulting in an increased pre-compression
Torque [Nm]
P = 80%
10
P = 90%
0
P = 100%
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Alpha angles [deg]
Fig. 5. Simulated alpha angle-torque characteristics of the presented
actuator for different levels of pre-compression P of the spring (from 0%
to 100%, with steps of 10%). For lower levels of pre-compression, the
MACCEPA torque has a more non-linear behavior. For higher levels of pre-
compression the behavior of the MACCEPA becomes more linear. The level
of pre-compression is expressed as the percentage of the working length of
the compressed spring.
of the spring. Obviously, the opposite effect is obtained
when the mechanism is rotated in the opposite direction.
This mechanism is non-backdrivable, thus it ensures that the
spring stays pre-compressed at the desired level all the time.
The selection of the spindle-drive was based on the results
regarding the necessary motor velocity and torque obtained
from the simulation. A Maxon EC-i 40 70W brushless motor
(nominal voltage 36V, nominal continuous torque 0.137Nm,
stall torque 3.190Nm and nominal speed 6440 rpm) and a
Maxon Spindle Drive GP32S Ballscrew10x2 (max feed
velocity 0.072m/s and 3.7:1 gear reduction) were selected.
By choosing the length of the spindle equal to 0.08m, the
total range of motion of the actuator is of 53◦ , which results
in 32◦ in plantarflexion and 21◦ in dorsiflexion, when the
actuator is correctly placed on the leg of the user. These
values are suitable for walking (Fig. 2).
To directly measure the torque-angle of the actuator, an
absolute magnetic encoder (AS5048A, SPI type, 6pins, 5V,
14-bit) is implemented. An incremental optical encoder (US
Digital HUBDISK-2-2000-625-IE, module EM1-2-2000-I,
DI/O type, 5 pins, 5V) is placed on the actuator in order
to measure the angle between the output and the motor links
of the actuator, which corresponds to the biological ankle
angle.
As said before, the main goal of the design of the actuator
was to improve a previous version of the same actuator in
order to provide high torques, while maintaining the increase
of weight as low as possible. This goal put some challenges
on the design of the actuator, since providing higher torques
means also that the actuator components need to be more
robust to sustain higher stresses caused by the aforemen-
tioned torques. To achieve this result, the design process was
guided by the analysis of the force distribution in the actuator

286

Authorized licensed use limited to: IIT - Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia. Downloaded on November 02,2022 at 16:06:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
structure. The effects of the stresses and deformations and
the force distribution in all the components of the actuator
were verified by means of a Finite Element Method (FEM)
analysis in Autodesk Inventor R . The aim of this analysis
was to remove material as much as possible to reduce the
weight of the actuator, but retaining the material needed for
its structural integrity. Therefore, this analysis was performed
in the configuration in which the spindle-drive exerts the
maximum expected force (according to the simulation). In
the design process a safety factor was included to ensure the
requirement of providing a peak torque of minimum 50Nm.
Thanks to this approach, the weight of the ankle actuator
is 1.18kg (including sensors and excluding electronics and
batteries) and it is 0.305m long and 0.082m wide.
III. CHARACTERIZATION TESTS
The performance of the presented actuator has been
Fig. 7 shows the results of the second characterization test
performed on the ankle actuator. In this test, the actuator
was controlled to follow a predefined sinusoidal torque
trajectory of 0.5Hz frequency. The amplitude of the reference
sinusoidal signal was increased during the experiment from
0Nm to 90Nm with 7 Nm offset to account for higher
plantarflexion torque (relative to dorsiflexion) expected for
the ankle actuator. The test was performed for six different
pre-compression settings of the MACCEPA spring (20%,
WINTER TORQUE (40% spring pre-compression)
50
45
reference
measured
40
35
30

torque [Nm]
evaluated with several static characterization tests. During
25
these tests, both links of the actuator were rigidly fixed
to the experimental setup, the motor link (Fig. 4) directly 20

connected to the experimental setup and the output link 15

(Fig. 4) connected to the setup via a torque sensor. The
10
torque sensor was fixed to the test setup, thus the rotation
5
of the output link during the characterization tests was not
possible. The connections between the actuator and the test 0
setup were made to simulate the attachment to the user’s 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22
time [s]
legs, i.e. the actuator was attached to the setup at the points
in which the connections to an AFO are foreseen. However, Fig. 6. Reference (in blue) and measured (in red) torque obtained during
a static characterization test of the ankle actuator. Positive torques are
the connections to the test setup were made to be very stiff plantarflexion torques. MACCEPA spring pre-compression was set to 40%.
and thus they don’t completely represent the attachment to The desired torque is the biological ankle torque trajectory [24] scaled
an AFO. During the tests, the lever arm was controlled by to have 50Nm as peak torque. Gait cycle time was set to be 2s. The
actuator followed very closely the reference torque. The discrepancies at
means of a PID controller. The input to the controller was the lower torques are a consequence of the gains of the PID controller.
torque error, i.e. the difference between the desired torque
trajectory and the actual torque, which was measured by the TORQUE (50% spring pre-compression)
torque sensor. The PID controller had as output the motor 100
90
velocity signal. Two of the tests performed on the actuator are 80 reference
presented in this section. The first test was performed to show 70 measured
60
the ability of the actuator in providing the biological torque 50
characteristic of the ankle joint during walking, scaled to 40
30
torque [Nm]

have a peak torque up to 50Nm, which is the peak torque for 20

which the actuator was designed. The second test was made 10
0
to show that the actuator is able to provide high torques. -10
Fig. 6 shows the response of the ankle actuator to the -20
-30
torque reference trajectory representing the biological ankle -40
torque of healthy subjects during overground walking [24]. -50
-60
The gait cycle was set to be 2 seconds, since, as said before, -70
the actuator was designed to assist patients walking at a speed -80
-90
equal to 2km/h, which is lower than the natural walking 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
time [s]
speed (4.7km/h). The reference signal (in blue) was scaled
setting the desired peak torque equal to an increasing value Fig. 7. Desired (in blue) and measured (in red) torque obtained during
from 5Nm to 50Nm (with steps of 5Nm). Only the results a static characterization test of the ankle actuator. Positive torques are
plantarflexion torques. MACCEPA spring pre-compression was set to 50%.
for the torque reference scaled to 50Nm are shown in Fig. 6. The desired torque is a sinusoidal trajectory of 0.5Hz, with offset 7Nm, to
During this test the MACCEPA spring pre-compression was account for higher plantarflexion torque (relative to dorsiflexion) expected
set to be 40%. The figure shows that the actuator successfully for the ankle actuator. The amplitude of the reference signal was manually
increased during the test, until reaching 97Nm in plantarflexion and 83Nm
followed the reference trajectory with the exception of small in dorsiflexion. These peak torques were reached with the actuator rigidly
errors at the lowest amplitude, due to the chosen gains of attached to the test setup via stiff connections. This condition doesn’t
the PID controller. completely represent the attachment to an AAFO.

287

Authorized licensed use limited to: IIT - Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia. Downloaded on November 02,2022 at 16:06:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
30%, 35%, 40%, 45% and 50%), but only the results for
the highest pre-compression setting are shown in Fig. 7. The
actuator was capable of following very closely the sinusoidal
reference. This test showed that the actuator can provide
high torques. However it has to be pointed out that the peak
torques reached in this test were obtained with the actuator
attached with stiff connections to a rigid test bench. This
condition doesn’t perfectly represent the attachment to a
human limb, thus the peak torques reachable while using
the actuator in a AAFO will be lower.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents the design of a lightweight, high-
torque and compliant actuator for an active ankle foot or-
thosis. This actuator is a compact spindle-driven MACCEPA
and it is an improved version of a previously developed ankle
actuator. The actuator is bidirectional, thus it can provide
torques both in plantarflexion and dorsiflexion. It has a ROM
of 32◦ in plantarflexion and 21◦ in dorsiflexion, which are
suitable values for walking. The design of the actuator was
guided by a FEM analysis in order to remove the material
which is not necessary for the structural integrity of the
actuator. Due to this careful design the weight of the actuator
was kept low, resulting in a total weight of 1.18kg including
sensors and excluding electronics and batteries. Several static
characterization tests were performed with the actuator. The
results of these tests show that the actuator is able to provide
the biological torque characteristic of the ankle joint during
walking scaled to have a peak torque of minimum 50Nm.
Thus, the presented actuator can provide higher torques with
respect to its previous version, which provides a peak torque
of 25Nm. However, the weights and the dimensions of the
two generations of the actuator are comparable.
In future, more exhaustive characterization tests, including
higher frequencies and bandwidth tests will be performed
on the actuator. Furthermore, the actuator will be connected
to an AFO and tested with healthy users, to evaluate the
potential of the device, and with impaired subjects, to assess
the performance of the actuator in assisting their ankle joint.
R EFERENCES
[1] D. J. Farris and G. S. Sawicki, “The mechanics and energetics of
human walking and running: a joint level perspective,” Journal of The
Royal Society Interface, vol. 9, no. 66, pp. 110–118, 2012.
[2] M. Meinders, A. Gitter, and J. M. Czerniecki, “The role of ankle
plantar flexor muscle work during walking.,” Scandinavian journal of
rehabilitation medicine, vol. 30, pp. 39–46, 1998.
[3] R. R. Neptune, S. A. Kautz, and F. E. Zajac, “Contributions of the
individual ankle plantar flexors to support, forward progression and
swing initiation during walking,” Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 34,
no. 11, pp. 1387–1398, 2001.
[4] S. J. Olney and C. Richards, “Hemiparetic gait following stroke. Part
I: Characteristics,” Gait and Posture, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 136–148, 1996.
[5] P. DeVita and T. Hortobagyi, “Age causes a redistribution of joint
torques and powers during gait,” Journal of applied physiology,
vol. 88, pp. 1804–1811, 2000.
[6] R. Van Ham, B. Vanderborght, M. Van Damme, B. Verrelst, and
D. Lefeber, “MACCEPA, the mechanically adjustable compliance and
controllable equilibrium position actuator: Design and implementation
in a biped robot,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 55, no. 10,
pp. 761–768, 2007.
288
Authorized licensed use limited to: IIT - Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia. Downloaded on November 02,2022 at 16:06:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[7] M. Moltedo, T. Bacek, K. Junius, B. Vanderborght, and D. Lefeber,
“Mechanical Design of a Lightweight Compliant and Adaptable Active
Ankle Foot Orthosis,” in 6th IEEE RAS & EMBS International Con-
ference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, (Singapore),
pp. 1224–1229, 2016.
[8] S. Hwang, J. Kim, J. Yi, K. Tae, K. Ryu, and Y. Kim, “Development
of an active ankle foot orthosis for the prevention of foot drop and toe
drag,” in International Conference on Biomedical and Pharmaceutical
Engineering, (Singapore), pp. 418–423, 2006.
[9] J. Kim, S. Hwang, R. Sohn, Y. Lee, and Y. Kim, “Development
of an active ankle foot orthosis to prevent foot drop and toe drag
in hemiplegic patients: A preliminary study,” Applied Bionics and
Biomechanics, vol. 8, pp. 377–384, 2011.
[10] S. Duerinck, E. Swinnen, P. Beyl, F. Hagman, I. Jonkers, P. Vaes,
and P. Van Roy, “The added value of an actuated ankle-foot orthosis
to restore normal gait function in patients with spinal cord injury: A
systematic review,” Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 44, no. 4,
pp. 299–309, 2012.
[11] Y.-L. Park, B.-r. Chen, N. O. Pérez-Arancibia, D. Young, L. Stirling,
R. J. Wood, E. C. Goldfield, and R. Nagpal, “Design and control of a
bio-inspired soft wearable robotic device for anklefoot rehabilitation,”
Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, vol. 9, 2014.
[12] D. P. Ferris, J. M. Czerniecki, and B. Hannaford, “An ankle-foot
orthosis powered by artificial pneumatic muscles,” Journal of Applied
Biomechanics, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 189–197, 2005.
[13] D. P. Ferris, K. E. Gordon, G. S. Sawicki, and A. Peethambaran, “An
improved powered ankle-foot orthosis using proportional myoelectric
control,” Gait and Posture, vol. 23, pp. 425–428, 2006.
[14] K. A. Shorter, G. F. Kogler, E. Loth, W. K. Durfee, and E. T. Hsiao-
Wecksler, “A portable powered ankle-foot orthosis for rehabilitation.,”
Journal of rehabilitation research and development, vol. 48, no. 4,
pp. 459–472, 2011.
[15] P. Malcolm, W. Derave, S. Galle, and D. De Clercq, “A simple
exoskeleton that assists plantarflexion can reduce the metabolic cost
of human walking.,” PloS one, vol. 8, p. e56137, jan 2013.
[16] K. A. Witte, J. Zhang, R. W. Jackson, and S. H. Collins, “De-
sign of Two Lightweight , High-Bandwidth Torque-Controlled Ankle
Exoskeletons,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation (ICRA), (Seattle), pp. 1223–1228, 2015.
[17] J. Ward, A. Boehler, and S. Louis, “Stroke Survivors’ Gait Adaptations
to a Powered Ankle Foot Orthosis,” Advanced Robotics, vol. 25,
no. 15, pp. 1879–1901, 2014.
[18] J. A. Blaya and H. Herr, “Adaptive Control of a Variable-Impedance
Ankle-Foot Orthosis to Assist Drop-Foot Gait,” IEEE Transactions
on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 12, no. 1,
pp. 24–31, 2004.
[19] R. C. Browning, J. R. Modica, R. Kram, and A. Goswami, “The effects
of adding mass to the legs on the energetics and biomechanics of
walking,” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, vol. 39, no. 3,
pp. 515–525, 2007.
[20] K. Junius, B. Brackx, V. Grosu, H. Cuypers, J. Geeroms, M. Moltedo,
B. Vanderborght, and D. Lefeber, “Mechatronic Design of a Sit-to-
Stance Exoskeleton,” in IEEE RAS and EMBS International Con-
ference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, (São Paulo,
Brazil), pp. 945–950, 2014.
[21] B. Brackx, J. Geeroms, J. Vantilt, V. Grosu, K. Junius, H. Cuypers,
B. Vanderborght, and D. Lefeber, “Design of a Modular Add-on Com-
pliant Actuator to Convert an Orthosis into an Assistive Exoskeleton,”
in EEE RAS/EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics
and Biomechatronics, (Sao Paulo, Brazil), pp. 485–490, 2014.
[22] T. Bacek, R. Unal, M. Moltedo, K. Junius, H. Cuypers, B. Van-
derborght, and D. Lefeber, “Conceptual Design of a Novel Variable
Stiffness Actuator for Use in Lower Limb Exoskeletons,” in IEEE
International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, (Singapore),
pp. 583–588, 2015.
[23] M. van Damme, P. Beyl, B. Vanderborght, R. Versluys, R. van Ham,
I. Vanderniepen, F. Daerden, and D. Lefeber, “The safety of a robot
actuated by pneumatic muscles-a case study,” International Journal of
Social Robotics, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 289–303, 2010.
[24] D. A. Winter, The biomechanics and motor control of human gait.
University of Waterloo Press, 1987.
[25] M. Afschrift, F. De Groote, J. De Schutter, and I. Jonkers, “The effect
of muscle weakness on the capability gap during gross motor function:
a simulation study supporting design criteria for exoskeletons of the
lower limb.,” Biomedical engineering online, vol. 13, no. 1, 2014.