biomimetics
Article
The Design and Testing of a PEA Powered Ankle Prosthesis
Driven by EHA
Qitao Huang *, Bowen Li
Citation: Huang, Q.; Li, B.; Xu, H.
The Design and Testing of a PEA
Powered Ankle Prosthesis Driven by
EHA. Biomimetics 2022, 7, 234.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
biomimetics7040234
Academic Editors: Hongmiao Tian,
Jinyou Shao and Xiangming Li
Received: 14 October 2022
Accepted: 8 December 2022
Published: 12 December 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 234. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7040234
and Hongguang Xu
Department of Fluid Control and Automation Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China
* Correspondence: huangqitao@hit.edu.cn
Abstract: Several studies have shown that actuation concepts such as Serial elastic actuator (SEA) can
reduce peak power and energy consumption in ankle prostheses. Proper selection and design of the
actuation concepts is important to unlock the power source potential. In this work, the optimization
design, mechanical design, control scheme, and bench experiments of a new powered ankle–foot
prosthesis is proposed. The actuation concept of this prosthesis is parallel elastic actuator (PEA)
composed of electro-hydrostatic actuator (EHA) as the power kernel and a unidirectional parallel
spring as the auxiliary energy storage element. After the appropriate motor and transmission ratio
was selected, a dynamic model of the PEA prosthesis was built to obtain the appropriate spring
parameters driven by biological data. The design of the hydraulic and mechanical system and the
controller were provided for the implementation of the designed system. Bench experiments were
performed to verify the performance. The results showed that the designed prosthesis meets the
biomechanical dynamics requirements. This result emphasizes the feasibility of the EHA as a power
source and actuator and provides new ideas for the design of ankle–foot prostheses.
Keywords: powered ankle prosthesis; electro-hydrostatic actuator (EHA); parallel elastic actuator
(PEA); power output; gait
1. Introduction
Although the passive ankle prosthesis [1] can help the disabled to return a certain
amount of energy to help them during walking, it does not have the ability of active
output, which leads to greater energy consumption [2] and gait distortion in amputee
patients during walking [3]. Compared with the knee prosthesis, designing a powered
ankle prosthesis is much more challenging, largely due to the load characteristics of the
ankle, which can require up to 1.6 ± 0.2 Nm/kg of peak torque and up to 2.5 W/kg of peak
power for medium-speed level walking [4], while the knee joint in the walking process
absorbs energy, so it hardly needs excessive power output of the knee prosthesis. Therefore,
how to improve the power-volume/mass ratio has become a core topic in the field of
dynamic lower limb research.
The concept of powered ankle prosthesis was first proposed by Herr [5], who demon-
strated the effectiveness of powered prosthesis by measuring human metabolism [6]. Series
elastic actuators (SEAs) [7] driven by motors has been the majority power kernel of powered
ankle prosthesis. It has been proved that SEAs can amplify the power of the actuator by as
much as 1.4 times under ideal load conditions [8]. In addition, SEAs can help enhance the
force control ability of the actuator and reduce the shock load of the drive system, which
are significant for gearboxes and screws [5]. Since then, a series of designs for ankle–foot
prostheses have been proposed. SPARKy is ankle prosthesis with SEA powered by a
150 W DC motor designed by Sugar et al. in Arizona State University, USA. The prosthesis
is enough to provide energy consumption and peak power output for an 80 kg subject
walking at a speed of 1.8 m/s [9,10]. The later prototype SPARKy 3 introduces a pair of
parallel mechanical Achilles tendons, which realizes the movement of ankle prosthesis in
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/biomimetics
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 234 2 of 14

the coronal plane [11]. Grimmer et al. designed the Walk–Run ankle with SEA, powered by
a 200 W DC motor [12]. The Walk–Run ankle was capable of providing 3 W/Kg in 1.6 m/s
walking, 5.6 W/Kg in 2.6 m/s running, and the maximum torque was 2.1 Nm/kg. Herr
added a unidirectional parallel spring based on SEA, so that SEA can choose lower spring
stiffness to obtain better output characteristics while meeting the force bandwidth need of
3.5 Hz [5]. Their subsequent prototype of ankle and knee prosthesis TF-8 use SEA as their
power kernel, which can provide a maximum torque of 160 Nm, a maximum velocity of
6 rad/s on its ankle joint, with an ankle segment mass of 2.6 Kg [13]. They concluded that
the SEA can provide power compensation while adapting to more terrain.
Parallel elastic actuator (PEA) [14] is another actuation concept, which usually com-
bines the motor with a unidirectional spring to share the force required by the motor.
Compared with SEA, PEA can significantly reduce the torque requirement of the motor to
the peak power requirement, without any change in speed, and contributes to the force
bandwidth improvement of the entire drive system. Verstraten carried out an optimization
analysis of the design of ankle–foot prosthesis, and the results show that the unidirectional
parallel spring is the optimal result in terms of both power and energy consumption for
their selected motor [15]. Frank designed a transfemoral prothesis with brushless DC mo-
tors of 200 W used in each joint. The parallel spring is used at the ankle joint to make up for
the shortage of output torque. The hole prosthesis is 4.5 Kg, with a maximum ankle torque
of 130 Nm and peak ankle power of 250 W, which can meet the needs of daily activities
such as walking at medium speed and going up and down stairs for adults weighing about
80 kg [16]. However, PEA is not suitable for those prostheses using mechanical reducers
such as gearbox and screw. The PEA, despite the introduction of springs, is a stiff driver.
For the mechanical transmission devices (e.g., gear boxes, ball screws, etc.), the shock load
during heal strike can cause damage. In addition, for those using mechanical transmission
devices, installing force sensors on the end-effector is difficult, while SEA can transform
force control to position control, which is more available for mechanical prostheses.
Electro-hydraulic actuator (EHA) is an alternative to the motor-mechanical reducer driver.
EHA is a power-by-wire (PBW) servo system widely used in aerospace industry [17,18]
which is appropriate for wearable robots due to its high output power to mass ratio,
high controllability, and robustness. The University of Tokyo was the first to apply the
EHA system to humanoid robots [19,20] and they demonstrated the advantages of the
backdrivability of EHA over gear transmission in force control. Based on the Elan Foot
passive hydraulic ankle–foot prosthesis produced by the company Blatchford, Dr. Yu
from the University of Bath led the design of an electro-hydrostatic-powered ankle–foot
prosthesis system, which can switch active and passive modes [21]. However, the hydraulic
system of this prosthesis is energy-consuming and has a complex sealing structure. Wang
designed an EHA-based prosthesis that is similar in function to AMP’s EEA [22]. It can
charge the accumulator in advance and release it during the push-off phase. The simulation
results show that the accumulator can provide 150 W peak power. Tessari designed a
prototype of the EHA knee prosthesis [23] and he demonstrated the potential of the EHA
system for high efficiency.
According to the literature review so far, EHA has been regarded as a pure hydraulic
system, and its excellent performance as a transmission device has never been reflected in
the design of prosthetic limbs. PEA also has greater potential in terms of power and energy
consumption than SEA. This study attempts to combine EHA and PEA, and provide full
play to both advantages via their combination. In our previous work [24], an EHA-driven
ankle–foot prosthesis design was proposed where the SEA was pre-defined as the actuation
concept of the prosthesis and the spring parameters were designed by the limitation of
the force bandwidth. In this article, we combined EHA with a unidirectional spring and
design the spring parameter with optimization to minimize the energy consumption in a
single cycle.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the design of the
ankle–foot prosthesis, including the design of hydraulic circuit and mechanical schematic,
 spring and design the spring parameter with optimization to minimize the energy con‐
sumption in a single cycle.
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 234 The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the design of the 3 of 14
ankle–foot prosthesis, including the design of hydraulic circuit and mechanical schematic,
the part selection, and the parameter settings of the spring. Section 3 provides the proto‐
type design, the
including the structure
part selection, and the design and the
parameter control
settings system.
of the Section
spring. 4 is3 the
Section exper‐the prototype
provides
iment for validating the performance,
design, including and Section
the structure design 5and
is the
thediscussion of theSection
control system. experimental
4 is the experiment
results. Section
for 6validating
concludesthe thisperformance,
article. and Section 5 is the discussion of the experimental results.
Section 6 concludes this article.
2. Design concept
2.1. Principal 2. Design Concept
Design of the Mechanism and Hydraulic System
2.1. Principal Design of the Mechanism and Hydraulic System
PEA has a greater ability to reduce output demand than SEA, and electro‐hydraulic
direct drive has the PEA has a greater
inherent advantageability to reduce output
of attenuating impactdemand thanwe
loads. Thus, SEA,
choseandtoelectro-hydraulic
use
direct drive has the inherent advantage of attenuating impact
PEA with EHA as the overall driving core. The schematic of the powered ankle prosthesis loads. Thus, we chose to use
PEA with EHA as the overall driving core. The schematic of the powered ankle prosthesis is
is shown in Figure 1. In the hydraulic circuit, a brushless DC motor and a bi‐directional
shown in Figure 1. In the hydraulic circuit, a brushless DC motor and a bi-directional gear
gear pump were used to deliver hydraulic oil directly to either side of the ankle cylinder,
pump were used to deliver hydraulic oil directly to either side of the ankle cylinder, while
while no damping valve was added to avoid unnecessary pressure loss. The accumulator
no damping valve was added to avoid unnecessary pressure loss. The accumulator charges
charges energy to the low‐pressure side through the check valve of the circuit. The hy‐
energy to the low-pressure side through the check valve of the circuit. The hydraulic circuit
draulic circuit was pre‐charged with pressure to prevent cavitation. The mechanical sche‐
was pre-charged with pressure to prevent cavitation. The mechanical schematic is shown in
matic is shown in Figure 1b. A four‐bar mechanism was designed to achieve single degree
Figure 1b. A four-bar mechanism was designed to achieve single degree of freedom rotation
of freedom rotation in the sagittal plane of the ankle joint. A unidirectional parallel spring
in the sagittal plane of the ankle joint. A unidirectional parallel spring was mounted under
was mounted under the hydraulic cylinder to share the load force when the cylinder’s
the hydraulic cylinder to share the load force when the cylinder’s piston is moving beyond
piston is moving beyond the equilibrium position.
the equilibrium position.

3 2 1 1
8

2
4
3
5
4
M
5
7
6

6 7

(a) (b)
Figure 1. Schematic
Figureof1.the poweredofankle
Schematic prosthesis.
the powered (a) prosthesis.
ankle The hydraulic circuit
(a) The diagram:
hydraulic 1: hydraulic
circuit diagram: 1: hydraulic
cylinder; 2: check valve; 3: accumulator; 4: gear pump; 5: brushless DC motor; 6: pressure sensor; 7:
cylinder; 2: check valve; 3: accumulator; 4: gear pump; 5: brushless DC motor; 6: pressure sensor;
sole; 8: link bar; 9: unidirectional spring. (b) The mechanical schematic: 1: hydraulic cylinder; 2:
7: sole; 8: link bar; 9: unidirectional spring. (b) The mechanical schematic: 1: hydraulic cylinder;
piston; 3: piston rod; 4: shaft shoulder on piston rod; 5: unidirectional spring; 6: sole; 7: link bar; 8:
2: piston;
piping to the oil supply 3: piston rod; 4: shaft shoulder on piston rod; 5: unidirectional spring; 6: sole; 7: link bar;
unit.
8: piping to the oil supply unit.
For walking between 0.5 and 2.6 m/s, the abled body angular velocity range is −250–
For walking between 0.5 and 2.6 m/s, the abled body angular velocity range is
320°/s, the maximum joint moment is 1.6 Nm/Kg, and the maximum angular range of
−250–320◦ /s, the maximum joint moment is 1.6 Nm/Kg, and the maximum angular
motion of the is 40° [13,26]. The swing phase duration is changed with the step speed, as
range of motion of the is 40◦ [12,25]. The swing phase duration is changed with the step
the speed increases the swing phase time percentage increases according to the research
speed, as the speed increases the swing phase time percentage increases according to the
and product swing phase time [1,4], the maximum swing phase time set in this paper is
research and product swing phase time [1,4], the maximum swing phase time set in this
0.4 s. In summary, all the parameter index settings are shown in the Table 1 which were
paper is 0.4 s. In summary, all the parameter index settings are shown in the Table 1 which
designed to meet the level ground walking requirements of an adult male of average
were designed to meet the level ground walking requirements of an adult male of average
height walking at a normal speed (1.25 m/s).
height walking at a normal speed (1.25 m/s).
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 234 4 of 14

Table 1. Performance metrics of the prosthesis.

ROM Max Speed Max Torque SW Period

40◦ (−20◦ ~20◦ ) 4 rad/s 1.6 Nm/Kg 0.4 s

In order to select the best scheme to reduce the size and mass of the prosthesis with
meeting the basic performance, the selection of each component and parameters on the
overall design must be strictly considered. Design needs to start with the selection of the
motor and then other parts of the prosthesis can be designed around the motor performance.
The motor is not an ideal torque source, so the dynamic simulation is also necessary during
the designing period.

2.2. Motor Selection

The motor should allow the inertia to be distributed along the leg rather than per-
pendicular to it, so torque motors were excluded. Thus, high speed motors with smaller
diameter less than 40 cm were selected while the mass was less than 500 g.
With the same volume and mass, the most efficient motor is selected. The additional
power consumption of the motor mainly comes from heating, which is generated by the
current due to the load and bearing friction. The motor with the lowest heating power was
selected. In the case of sufficient drive capacity, the performance of the motor is mainly
limited by the heat, which is determined by the maximum continuous current and the
motor driver limits the RMS of the current to protect the motor from overheating. Thus, we
calculate the heating power of the motor by the continuous maximum current value Icont
and motor terminal resistance R as (1).

PH = Icont 2 R (1)

In addition, the acceleration performance of the motor also needs to be considered.

The PEA does not help motor reduce speed throughout the cycle, so choosing a motor with
low inertia is significant. According to the above criteria, we select the appropriate motor
in Maxon Motor. The EC-I 40 brushless DC motor (100 W) was selected and parameters are
shown in the Table 2.

Table 2. Motor parameters of the Eci-40 Maxon brushless DC motor.

Parameters Value
Torque constant Kt 0.091 Nm/A
Speed constant Kb 105 rpm/V
Terminal resistance R 1.01 Ω
Terminal inductance L 0.995 mH
Motor inertia Jm 44 gcm2
Friction coefficient vm 5.21 × 106 Nms/rad
Maximum permissive speed nmax 8000 rpm
Maximum continuous current Icont 2.39 A

2.3. Transmission Ratio

The speed requirement of the ankle prosthesis for walking task is 4 rad/s (38.2 r/min),
the rated no-load speed of the motor is 5000 r/min, and the maximum allowable speed of
the machine is 8000 r/min. As the motor is the highest efficiency in the working state of
high speed and low torque, we attempted to choose a higher transmission ratio to make
the motor work in the high efficiency range. Under the condition of satisfying the speed
performance, we preliminarily selected 100 as the transmission ratio of the system (from
the motor shaft to the ankle joint rotation pair) with consideration of volume efficiency of
the hydraulic pump.
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 234 5 of 14

2.4. Spring
2.4.1. Driver System Modeling
As mentioned above, the purpose of the spring is to enable the entire drive system
to meet the power requirements within the limits of the motor. Therefore, we need to
model the motor dynamic system and analyze it under the specified load and the spring
parameters were selected based on the result.
The motor model was established by voltage Equation (2) and torque Equation (3).
.
Where J p is the inertia of the pump, θ m is the motor speed, Tm is the load torque on the
motor, U is the motor voltage, and I is the motor current.
.. .
k t I = (( Jm + J p )θ m + Tm + vm θ m ) (2)
. .
U = L I + RI + k b θ m (3)
The torque at both ends of the transmission device can be expressed by (4). Transmis-
sion efficiency needs to be considered. The efficiency of working in quadrant 1, 3 should be
distinguished from that in quadrant 2, 4. This model does not consider nonlinear effects,
and the same efficiency was selected, which is represented by (5). Where the Tl is the load
joint torque, C is the efficiency coefficient, and N is the transmission ratio.

C
Tm = T (4)
N l

1/η ( Pm > 0)
C= (5)
η ( Pm < 0)
A unidirectional parallel spring can be represented by (6), where k p is the spring
stiffness, Ts is the torque equivalent torque on the parallel spring, and θeq is the equilibrium
point of the spring. The spring is only engaged when the ankle angle is greater than θeq .


k p θ − θeq (θ ≥ θini )
Ts = (6)
0 ( θ < 0)

The torque provided by the motor is equal to the load torque minus the part shared by
the spring as (7), where T is the ankle torque.

T = Tl − Ts (7)

2.4.2. Limits and the Indicator of the Optimization

The constraints of the motor mainly come from overspeed and overcurrent.
Overspeed can lead to reduced bearing lifetime of the motor or cause overvoltage
of the motor drive due to back electromotive force. If the gear ratio is properly designed,
the former almost never happens. Restrictions usually come from the diver voltage limit,
where Umax is the maximum output of the motor driver.

U ≤ Umax (8)

Overcurrent can cause long-term and short-term overheating of the motor. Drivers
limit the RMS of the current to limit long-term overheating, short-term overheating is
usually limited by the output capacity of the driver itself. The motor current I should not
exceed the driver maximum current Imax at any time, and the effective value should not
exceed continuous operating current Icont as shown in Equations (9) and (10). The set of
parameters that leads to the lowest power consumption as described with (11) is used
for the final design. The finding method is global research. Driver limit parameters and
transmission parameters related to the simulation are shown in Table 3.
 Overcurrent can cause long‐term and short‐term overheating of the motor. Drivers
limit the RMS of the current to limit long‐term overheating, short‐term overheating is usu‐
ally limited by the output capacity of the driver itself. The motor current I should not
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 234 exceed the driver maximum current I max at any time, and the effective value should not 6 of 14
exceed continuous operating current I cont as shown in Equation (9) and (10). The set of
parameters that leads to the lowest power consumption as described with (11) is used for
the final design. The finding method is global research. Driver limit parameters and trans‐
mission parameters related to the simulation are| I | shown
≤ Imaxin Table 3. (9)
sI  I
Z max (9)
1 T 2
I dt ≤ Icont (10)
1 TT 0
 I Zdt  I cont
2
(10)
T 0 T
|U · I |dt (11)
T

0
U 0I dt (11)

Table 3. Parameters used in the simulation. Umax and Imax are the capacity of Escon 50/5. Jp is the
Table 3. Parameters used in the simulation. U max and I max are the capacity of Escon 50/5. Jp is
inertia of VIVOIL reversable pump. η was selected based on experience.
the inertia of VIVOIL reversable pump.  was selected based on experience.
Umax Imax Jp η
U max I max 15 A Jp 
48 V 7 gcm2 70%
48 V 15 A 7 gcm2 70%
According to the model and constraints proposed above, we excluded the spring
According that
parameters to thedid
model
notand constraints
meet proposed above,
the requirements withwe excluded
the global the spring pa‐
research method, and
rameters that did not meet the requirements with the global research method, and selected
selected the combination of spring parameters that minimized the energy consumption of
the combination of spring parameters that minimized the energy consumption of the mo‐
the motor as the elastic energy storage device.
tor as the elastic energy storage device.
2.4.3. The Optimization Results
2.4.3. The Optimization Results
AsAs thethe optimization
optimization results
results show show in Figure
in Figure 2 and4, Table
2 and Table 4, the curve
the stiffness stiffness curve of the
of the
parallel spring is close to one side of the quasi‐stiffness curve of the sample data. This data. This
parallel spring is close to one side of the quasi-stiffness curve of the sample
makes
makes sensesense because
because the optimization
the optimization goal wasgoal
to was to minimize
minimize the energy theconsumption,
energy consumption,
and and
thethe motor
motor only only
needsneeds to compensate
to compensate the power
the power represented
represented by thecontainment
by the sample sample containment
area.
area. AtAt thethe same
same time,
time, thethe parallel
parallel spring
spring withwith the optimized
the optimized resultresult
hardlyhardly
affectsaffects
the the reset
reset of the
of the swing
swing phase,so
phase, sothe
the position
position control
controlofofthe
theswing
swingphase is not
phase affected.
is not Com‐Compared
affected.
pared
withwith the driving
the driving system
system without
without spring,the
spring, theoptimized
optimized results
results can
can reduce
reducethethepeak
peak electrical
electrical power to 348.6 W (from 524.7 W) and the electrical
power to 348.6 W (from 524.7 W) and the electrical energy consumption energy consumption to to
18.3
18.3 J (from
J (from
64.2 J)64.2
in aJ) single
in a single
gaitgait cycle.
cycle.

400 140
Reference
Reference
Electircal PS
300 PS 100
Inertia
200
60
100

20
0

‐100 ‐20
0 25 50 75 100 ‐0.4 ‐0.2 0 0.2
gait cycle(%) Angle(rad)
(a) (b)

Figure 2. Simulation result of the optimization. (a) Power results of the simulation, where the
reference power (black), motor power (green) and parallel spring power (blue) are plotted along the
gait cycle. (b) Reference data of the able-body (black) from [4] and the optimal result of the parallel
spring stiffness (blue).

Direct drive (DD) is the case without any elastic element. In the case of optimization
with electrical energy consumption, k p was 500 and θeq was −2◦ . In each gait cycle, the
peak power of the motor driver Pdiver was 348.6 W, the peak power provided by the parallel
spring PPS was 208.3 W, and the motor driver consumes electrical energy Ediver of 18.3 J.
Compared with the case without the parallel spring, this energy consumption EDD and
electrical peak power PDD were 64.2 J and 524.7 W, respectively.
 kp  eq Pdiver PPS PDD Ediver EPS EDD
500 Nm/rad −2° 348.6 W 208.3 W 524.7 W 18.3 J 29.1 J 64.2 J

Biomimetics 2022, 7, 234 Direct drive (DD) is the case without any elastic element. In the case of optimization 7 of 14
with electrical energy consumption, k p was 500 and  eq was −2°. In each gait cycle, the
peak power of the motor driver Pdiver was 348.6 W, the peak power provided by the par‐
Table 4. Simulation result of the optimization.
allel spring PPS was 208.3 W, and the motor driver consumes electrical energy Ediver of
kp θeq18.3 J. Compared
Pdiver with the case
PPSwithout the parallel
PDD spring, Ethis
diverenergy consumption
EPS EDD EDD
500 Nm/rad −2◦and electrical peak
348.6 PDD W
W power 208.3 were 64.2 524.7
J andW524.7 W, respectively.
18.3 J 29.1 J 64.2 J

3. Specific Implementation
3. Specific Implementation
3.1. The3.1.
Overall Design Design
The Overall
The whole
The design
whole is shown
design isin Figurein3.Figure
shown The height of height
3. The the prosthesis is 226 mm is
of the prosthesis (from
226 mm (from
the bottom of the foot to the pyramid adapter), the height from the joint to the
the bottom of the foot to the pyramid adapter), the height from the joint to the adapter is adapter is
140 mm, and the length of the foot is 318 mm. The range of motion of the prosthesis is 40°
140 mm, and the length of the foot is 318 mm. The range of motion of the prosthesis is
(with 20°◦ on both sides of the foot in the flat position). The hydraulic cylinder and its
40 (with 20◦ on both sides of the foot in the flat position). The hydraulic cylinder and its
internal components, the valve block, and the foot joint are fabricated of aluminum, and
internal components, the valve block, and the foot joint are fabricated of aluminum, and the
the foot as well as the heel are fabricated of carbon fiber. The overall mass of the prosthesis
foot as well as the heel are fabricated of carbon fiber. The overall mass of the prosthesis is
is 2.6 kg. The brushless DC motor and bidirectional gear pump were used to deliver hy‐
2.6 kg. The brushless DC motor and bidirectional gear pump were used to deliver hydraulic
draulic oil directly to both sides of the ankle cylinder through very short and thick pipes
oil directly to both sides of the ankle cylinder through very short and thick pipes integrated
integrated inside the manifold block. The hydraulic cylinder was integrated in the shank
inside the manifold block. The hydraulic cylinder was integrated in the shank to minimize
to minimize the volume of the prosthesis. A four‐bar linkage transforms the linear dis‐
the volume
placement of the
into angular prosthesis. A
displacement. four-bar
The linkageparallel
unidirectional transforms
springthewas
linear displacement
mounted in into
angular displacement. The unidirectional parallel spring was mounted
the slot of the cylinder. The designed parameters and parts considered in the criterion in the slot of the
cylinder. The designed
above are shown in Table 5. parameters and parts considered in the criterion above are shown
in Table 5.

(a) (b)
Figure Figure
3. The ankle
3. Theprosthesis. (a) The(a)
ankle prosthesis. overall designdesign
The overall of the of
prosthesis: 1: hydraulic
the prosthesis: cylinder;
1: hydraulic 2:
cylinder; 2: shank
shank link; 3: pressure sensors; 4: gear pump; 5: accumulator connector; 6: brushless DC motor;
link; 3: pressure sensors; 4: gear pump; 5: accumulator connector; 6: brushless DC motor; 7: 7: spring
spring slot; 8: connector; 9: heel spring; 10: displacement transducer; 11: sole. (b) The structure and
slot; 8: connector; 9: heel spring; 10: displacement transducer; 11: sole. (b) The structure and the key
the key dimension of the prosthesis.
dimension of the prosthesis.

Table 5. Main components in the powered ankle prosthesis.

Main Component Features

Nominal Voltage 48 V
Maxon ECi-40 (P/N 488607) Rated Power 100 W
Brushless DC Motor Nominal Speed 5000 rpm
Escon 50/5 Servo Nominal Voltage 10–50 V
Controller Maximum Output Current 48 A
VIVOIL
Displacement 0.92 cc/rev
Reversible Gear Pump
Integrated Ankle Joint Working Area 6.5 cm2
Cylinder Movement Range 35◦
Poisson’s ratio 0.31
Carbon fiber Sole
Elastic modulus 2.1 × 105 MPa
 Controller Maximum Output Current 48 A
VIVOIL
Displacement 0.92 cc/rev
Reversible Gear Pump
Integrated Ankle Joint Working Area 6.5 cm2
Cylinder Movement Range 35 º
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 234 Poisson’s ratio 0.31 8 of 14
Carbon fiber Sole
Elastic modulus 2.1×105 MPa

3.2. Control
3.2. Control System
System
The control
The control program
program was was on on aaNational
NationalInstruments
Instruments (NIs)(NIs) CompactRIO
CompactRIO system system via via
add‐on
add-on modules where two independent ADC modules (NI 9381,
two independent ADC modules (NI 9381, NI 9207) were used NI 9207) were used to
acquire
to acquire data from
data fromall all
thethesensors
sensors andandthe the
motor‐pump
motor-pump unitunit
waswas powered
powered by aby 48 aV48lith‐
V
ium‐ion battery
lithium-ion batterythrough
through an an
amplifier
amplifier (Escon
(Escon50/5
50/5Servo Controller)
Servo Controller)whichwhichcancan record
recordthe
motor
the speed
motor and and
speed the drive current
the drive in thein
current meantime.
the meantime.An angular sensor was
An angular used
sensor to meas‐
was used
ure
to the ankle
measure therotation angle about
ankle rotation angle the joint the
about while two
joint pressure
while transducers
two pressure were mounted
transducers were
at the outlets
mounted at the ofoutlets
pump to of measure
pump to the hydraulic
measure pressure on
the hydraulic both sides
pressure on bothof the hydraulic
sides of the
cylinder. The
hydraulic wholeThe
cylinder. electronic
whole system
electronicis temporarily powered bypowered
system is temporarily wall socket power
by wall sup‐
socket
ply and
power will beand
supply replaced
will beby a lithium
replaced by battery
a lithium in battery
future research.
in future research.
The
Thecontroller
controllerflowchart
flowchartisisshown
shownas asFigure
Figure4. 4. Firstly,
Firstly,the
theraw
rawdata
data ofof position
position sensors
sensors
and
and pressure
pressure sensors
sensors areare filtered
filtered andand converted
converted to to joint
joint angle
angle and
and joint
joint torque. Secondly,
the
the state
state machine
machine switches
switches thethe support
support phase
phase and
and swing
swing phase
phase according
according to to the
the processed
processed
data. Then, during the stance phase, the impedance controller outputs
data. Then, during the stance phase, the impedance controller outputs a torque command a torque command
based
based onon the
the processed
processed data, data, and
and thethe PD
PD force
force controller
controller is is used
used toto follow
follow the the command.
command.
The
Thereset
resetcommand
commandofofthe thesole
soleis is
issued
issuedbybythethe
position
position controller
controllerandandfollowed
followedduring the
during
swing phase.
the swing Finally,
phase. the output
Finally, the outputof theofforce controller
the force and position
controller controller
and position is converted
controller is con‐
into a voltage
verted into a signal
voltageforsignal
the motor
for the driver.
motorThe specific
driver. Thecontrol
specificalgorithm and the modeling
control algorithm and the
of the whole EHA system were described in detail in [24,26].
modeling of the whole EHA system were described in detail in [25,27]. The controller ac‐The controller accurately
reproduces the biomechanical
curately reproduces quasi-static
the biomechanical stiffness profile
quasi‐static stiffnessasprofile
show in asFigure
show in 5a,Figure
which5a, is
important for ankle–foot prostheses. At the same time, the forces and
which is important for ankle–foot prostheses. At the same time, the forces and angles were angles were restored
to a largertoextent
restored a largerthroughout the gait cycle
extent throughout compared
the gait with the biomechanical
cycle compared with the biomechanicaldata, as
shown in Figure 5b.
data, as shown in Figure 5b.

x [V]
Data processing
presure1[V]
presure2[V] x [rad] Tjoint [Nm]
Sensors x [rad/s]

Impedance
controller

Tdir [Nm]
State
machine Force
Controller
Motor
Angular
Speed [V]
Controller
Driver

Figure 4. The controller flow chat. The control system takes the voltage signal from the sensors as
inputs and outputs the voltage signal for the speed command to the motor driver.
Biomimetics 2022, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14
Biomimetics 2022, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14

Figure 4. The controller flow chat. The control system takes the voltage signal from the sensors as
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 234 Figureand
4. The controller flow chat. The 9 ofas14
inputs outputs the voltage signal forcontrol system
the speed takes the
command voltage
to the signal
motor from the sensors
driver.
inputs and outputs the voltage signal for the speed command to the motor driver.

Torque Angle
Torque
Reference Angle
Reference
140 20
Controller
Reference Controller
Reference
140 20
Controller Controller

100 10
100 10

60 0
60 0

20 ‐10
20 ‐10

‐20 ‐20
‐20 0 25 50 75 100‐20
0 25 gait cycle(%)
50 75 100
gait cycle(%)
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 5. Simulation result of the optimization. (a) Simulative and reference quasi‐stiffness. (b) Sim‐
Figure
Figure5.
ulative 5.Simulation
ankleSimulation result
result
joint torque andofofthe
theoptimization.
angle optimization.(a)
(a)Simulative
with reference Simulativeand
data. andreference
referencequasi‐stiffness. (b)Sim‐
quasi-stiffness. (b) Simu-
ulative ankle joint torque and angle with reference
lative ankle joint torque and angle with reference data. data.
4. Experiments
4.4.Experiments
Experiments
4.1. Fast Response Test
4.1. FastResponse
4.1. Fast ResponseTest
Test
Before proceeding to clinical trials, it is necessary to verify the performance of the
Beforeproceeding
Before proceedingtotoclinical
clinical trials,ititisisnecessary
necessary toverify
verifythe the performanceofofthe the
ankle–foot prosthesis. We tested thetrials,
stance phase and thetoswing phaseperformance
separately.
ankle–foot
ankle–foot prosthesis.
prosthesis. We tested
We tested the stance
the stance phase and
phase and the the swing
swing phase
phase separately.
separately.
There
Thereisisno
noexternal
externalloadloadduring
during the
the swing
swing phase,
phase, which
which is only
is only the
the positioncontrol
position controlof
ofthe There
theEHA is no
EHAsystem. external
system. The load
The sole
sole of during
of the the swing phase, which is only the position control
the foot
foot should
should be berepositioned
repositionedquickly
quicklyenough
enoughtotopreventprevent
of the
falls EHA system. The sole of the foot should be repositioned quickly enough to prevent
fallsand
andbebeready
readyfor
forthe
thenext
nextheel
heelstrike.
strike.The
Themaximum
maximummotor motorspeed
speedwas wassetsettoto5000
5000RPM
RPM
falls the
and and be ready for the next heelwas strike. The maximum motor speed was set to 5000 RPM
and themaximum
maximumcurrent currentlimit
limit was1515A.A.For Forlevel
levelwalking,
walking,we wesetset25°
25◦asasthetherange
rangeofof
and thefor
motion maximum current limit wasphase.
15 A. For level walking,
withwe set 25° asofthe ◦ range of
motion fordorsiflexion
dorsiflexionat atthe
theswing
swing phase. StepStep command
command with amplitude
amplitude of 2525° wasset
was set
to
motion
to adjustforPDdorsiflexion
parametersfor at
forthe
fastswing phase.
response Step command
without overshoot.with amplitude
Theresult
resultisisshownof 25°
shown inwas set
Figure
adjust PD parameters fast response without overshoot. The in Figure 6.
toThe
6. adjust PD
step parameters
response timefor fastprosthesis
of the
the response without overshoot. The result is shown in Figure
The step response time of prosthesis waswas 0.2
0.2 ss (rise
(risetime
time0.15
0.15s,s,fall
falltime
time0.12
0.12s),s),which
which
6. The the
meets step response time of the prosthesis was 0.2 s period
(rise time 0.15 s, fall intime 0.121.s), which
meets therapidity
rapidityrequirement
requirementofofthe theswing
swingphase
phase periodasasprovided
provided inTable Table 1.
meets the rapidity requirement of the swing phase period as provided in Table 1.
10
10 Reference
5 Reference
5 Angle
0 Angle
0
‐5
‐5
‐10
‐10
‐15
‐15
‐20
‐20
‐25
‐25
‐30
‐30 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
time(s)
time(s)
Figure
Figure6.6.Result
Resultofoffast
fastresponse
responsetest.
test.
Figure 6. Result of fast response test.
4.2.Loading
4.2. LoadingTest
Test
4.2. Loading
TheloadTest
loadtrajectory
trajectoryofofstance
stancephase
phasecancanbeberepresented
representedby bythe
thetorque–velocity
torque–velocitycurve
curve
The
shownThe load
in trajectory
Figure 7. The of
bluestance
line phase
is the can
load be represented
trajectory of an by the
able torque–velocity
body while
shown in Figure 7. The blue line is the load trajectory of an able body while the red curve the redcurve
curve
shown
is the in Figure
load curve 7. of
The blue
PEA andlinethe
is the load
black trajectory
line of an
is the load able body
trajectory while
under the
the red curveof
execution
sinusoidal position commands with spring load. In order to verify the capability of EHA
 These parameters were set as Table 6 to cover the motor load trajectory of the PEA,
as depicted as orange line in Figure 7. The blue curve in Figure 7b is the torque–velocity
curve of the ankle joint of a 75 kg able‐body male with a maximum speed of 4 rad/s and a
maximum torque of 125 Nm. The orange curve is the load curve of the EHA of the PEA
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 234 prosthesis, which is the power that needs to be provided by the driver in addition to the 10 of 14
power provided by the parallel spring. According to the load trajectory, if the EHA system
can provide a load greater than the orange load curve, it proves that the prosthesis can
meet the human body requirements corresponding to the blue curve. If the EHA system
system designed in Chapter 3, an elastic load is designed as (12) and the ankle should move
can as
meet
(13)the elastic load requirements within the limits described in 2.4.2, it also meets
the biomechanical requirements. For the Ttest bench design as shown in Figure 7a, the pros‐(12)
l = −k l (θ + θo )
thesis was fixed on a testbench, a stiffness of 5000 N/m spring connection at distances of
20 cm from the center of the rotary joints, θ= θ0 sin
and equivalent torsional stiffness is 200(13)
theωt
Nm/rad. Angular
where k is the stiffness of the spring load, θ is theasequilibrium
displacement command described seen (15) was conducted.
point.
l o

Max
power

(a) (b)
Figure 7. The
Figure loading
7. The test test
loading device and and
device the load trajectory:
the load (a) the
trajectory: (a) experimental device
the experimental of the
device of loading
the loading
test;test;
(b) load trajectory expressed by angular speed and torque.
(b) load trajectory expressed by angular speed and torque.

TheThese
experimental
parameters loadwere
trajectory
set asisTable
shown ascover
6 to the turquoise
the motor line
loadin Figure
trajectory7b. The
of theredPEA,
pointasisdepicted
the maximum power
as orange linepoint on the
in Figure 7. trajectory (218 W,
The blue curve in 52 Nm, 7b
Figure andis4.2
therad/s), which
torque–velocity
is slightly
curve oflarger than the
the ankle jointtarget
of a 75maximum
kg able-bodypower point
male withof athe orange line
maximum speed(178ofW, 51 Nm,
4 rad/s and a
andmaximum
3.7 rad/s). The
torqueredoftranslucent
125 Nm. The areaorange
is the area covered
curve is the byloadthecurve
experimental
of the EHA maximum
of the PEA
powerprosthesis, whichwhich
point, within is the power that needs
the prosthesis cantoreach
be provided by the point.
any operating driver Together
in addition to the
with
the power
red area,provided by the parallel
the experimental spring.
trajectory According
contains to the load
the orange curve trajectory, if the EHAfrom
inside. Therefore, system
can provide of
the perspective a load
loadgreater
matching,thanthe
theprosthesis
orange load cancurve,
meet ittheproves that the prosthesis
requirements of the bluecanlinemeet
the human body
corresponding to therequirements
human body. corresponding
As shown intoFigure the blue curve.
8, the If theofEHA
angles systemcan
the joints canbemeet
tracked, but asymmetrical errors occur. This is because the controller adopts position con‐ the
the elastic load requirements within the limits described in Section 2.4.2, it also meets
trol biomechanical
mode during the requirements.
load test, and For the test
springbench design
force as shown
is applied to thein Figure 7a, the
prosthesis asprosthesis
a dis‐
was fixed
turbance. From onthea testbench,
experimental a stiffness
results,ofit 5000
does N/m spring
not affect theconnection
performance at validation.
distances ofThe 20 cm
fromranges
current the center
fromof theArotary
−9.2 to ~2.8joints, and the
A, which equivalent
is within torsional
the driver capacitystiffness
limitis(15200A).Nm/rad.
The
Angulartrend
fluctuation displacement
of currentcommand described
and pressure as seen
is basically the(13) wasbut
same, conducted.
the pressure sign stays

Table 6. Parameters of the elastic load and the loading track.

kl θo ω
200 Nm/rad 0.3 rad 20 rad/s

The experimental load trajectory is shown as the turquoise line in Figure 7b. The red
point is the maximum power point on the trajectory (218 W, 52 Nm, and 4.2 rad/s), which
is slightly larger than the target maximum power point of the orange line (178 W, 51 Nm,
and 3.7 rad/s). The red translucent area is the area covered by the experimental maximum
power point, within which the prosthesis can reach any operating point. Together with
the red area, the experimental trajectory contains the orange curve inside. Therefore, from
the perspective of load matching, the prosthesis can meet the requirements of the blue
line corresponding to the human body. As shown in Figure 8, the angles of the joints can
be tracked, but asymmetrical errors occur. This is because the controller adopts position
control mode during the load test, and the spring force is applied to the prosthesis as a dis-
turbance. From the experimental results, it does not affect the performance validation. The
Biomimetics 2022, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14
Biomimetics 2022, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14

Biomimetics 2022, 7, 234 negative and the current sign changes. This is mainly due to the inertial load of the motor 11 of 14
negative and the current sign changes. This is mainly due to the inertial load of the motor
and pump. With an average electrical peak power of 430 W and an average mechanical
and pump. With an average electrical peak power of 430 W and an average mechanical
peak power of 200 W, the output power of the EHA system meets the requirements of the
peak power of 200 W, the output power of the EHA system meets the requirements of the
PEA, as shown
current in Figure
−9.29.9.
AThe electrical power showsthe twodriver
significant peaks
limit(430
(15 W and
PEA, as ranges
shownfromin Figure to ~2.8
The A, which
electrical is within
power shows two capacity
significant peaks (430 A). The
W and
120 W).
fluctuation trend of current and pressure is basically the same, but the pressure sign stays
120 W).
negative and the current sign changes. This is mainly due to the inertial load of the motor
Table 6. Parameters of the elastic load and the loading track.
and pump.
Table With an
6. Parameters average
of the elasticelectrical peak
load and the power
loading of 430 W and an average mechanical
track.
peak power of 200 W, the output power of the EHA system meets the requirements of the
kl o 
PEA, as shown in Figurekl 9. The electrical power shows  o two significant peaks  (430 W and
120 W). 200 Nm/rad 0.3 rad 20 rad/s
200 Nm/rad 0.3 rad 20 rad/s

10 Current Pressure 20
10 Current Pressure 20
5 0
5 0
0
0 ‐20
‐5 ‐20
‐5 ‐40
‐10 ‐40
‐10
‐15 ‐60
‐150 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 ‐60
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
time(s) Reference
0.6 time(s) Reference
0.6 Experimental
0.4 Experimental
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
‐0.20
‐0.2
‐0.4
‐0.4
‐0.6
‐0.60 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
time(s)
time(s)
Figure
Figure8.8.
8.Sensor
Sensordata
dataofof
ofthe
theloading
loadingtest.
test.
Figure Sensor data the loading test.

Figure 9. Mechanical power and electrical power of the loading test.

Figure
Figure 9.
9. Mechanical
Mechanical power
power and
and electrical
electrical power
power of
of the
the loading
loading test.
test.
5. Discussion
5. Discussion
5. Discussion
According
According to
totothe above
theabove
experiments,
aboveexperiments,
experiments,the
the prosthesis
theprosthesis
can
prosthesiscan
meet
canmeet
thethe
meetthe
loadload
profile
profile
with a
with
According the load profile with a
peak
a peaktorque
torqueof 120 Nm,
of 120 a
Nm, maximum
a maximum speed of
speed4 rad/s, and
of 4 rad/s,a fast recover time of 0.2 s, which
peak torque of 120 Nm, a maximum speed of 4 rad/s, and a and a fast recover
fast recover time oftime 0.2 s,ofwhich
0.2 s,
iswhich
acceptable for a 75 kg
is acceptable male. Wemale.
emphasize the importance of satisfying the load profile,
is acceptable for a 75forkg amale.
75 kg We emphasize
We emphasize the importance
the importance of satisfying
of satisfying the loadthe load
profile,
i.e., the
profile, demands
i.e., the of the
demands ankle
of joint
the at
ankle every
joint atmoment
every in the
moment gait
in thecycle,
gait rather
cycle, than the
rather thanper‐
the
i.e., the demands of the ankle joint at every moment in the gait cycle, rather than the per‐
formance
performance of the prosthesis
of the itself.
prosthesis Therefore,
itself. we
Therefore, analyzed
we analyzedthe motor model
the motor and
model design the
formance of the prosthesis itself. Therefore, we analyzed the motor model and and
designdesign
the
prosthesis
the prosthesisparameters
parameterswith with
biomechanical data as
biomechanical the target load. A situation can becan seen
prosthesis parameters with biomechanical data data
as theastarget
the target
load.load. A situation
A situation can be seen be
inseen
[14],inwhere
[13], the maximum
where the power of
maximum the ankle
power of thewas 552 was
ankle W, but 552 itW,
cannot
but provide
it cannot enough
provide
in [14], where the maximum power of the ankle was 552 W, but it cannot provide enough
torque
enough compared with the biomechanical
torque compared data. The data.
load profiles were also were
not matched
torque compared with the with the biomechanical
biomechanical data. The load The profilesload profiles
were also not
also not matched
inmatched
comparable in active
comparable EHA prostheses
active EHA [22,23].
prostheses [21,22].
in comparable active EHA prostheses [22,23].
From
Fromthe theperspective
perspectiveof ofpower
powerdensity,
density,the
themass
massofofthe
theprosthetic
prostheticprototype
prototypeisisis2.6 2.6Kg.
Kg.
From the perspective of power density, the mass of the prosthetic prototype 2.6 Kg.
Although
Although meeting
meeting the
the requirement,
requirement, the mass
the masscan canbebereduced
reducedtotoa considerable
a considerable extent
extent on on
the
Although meeting the requirement, the mass can be reduced to a considerable extent on
the valve
valve block,
block, withwith the help
the help of metal 3D printing. The gearispump is to
possible to be
the valve block, with the of metal
help of 3D printing.
metal The gear
3D printing. Thepump possible
gear pump be integrated
is possible to be
with the motor as one part, so the power density ratio of the prosthesis can be improved.
For EHA system, the parallel spring reduces the torque requirement and therefore
the pre-charge pressure. During this experiment, the pressure difference between the two
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 234 12 of 14

chambers at maximum load did not exceed 40 bar, so a pre-charge pressure of 20 bar was
sufficient. It also greatly reduces the flow of external leaks and reduces the requirement
for seals. For EHA systems without springs [21], a higher pre-charge pressure is required,
which significantly increases the complexity of the sealing device.
From an overall design point of view, different choice of motors may lead to various
designs. In Section 2.4, we obtained an optimization result of parallel spring in line
with [15] which used a motor having similar characteristics to ours. In the selection of
motor parameters, the choice of a motor with low inertia and high torque constant can
help reduce motor current, thereby reducing motor energy consumption and improving
efficiency. The inertial load was obvious, although we only applied an external elastic
load, which came mainly from the inertial load of the motor. According to Figure 8, the
first current peak was very close to the phase of the mechanical peak, while the second
peak was close to the phase of the positive peak of the current, so it was mainly caused by
inertial load. This illustrates the importance of choosing a small inertia motor, which is also
mentioned in [15].
PEA can reduce motor torque requirements as shown in Figure 6, avoiding motors
from overcurrent. The optimization result of [13] is a series spring, largely because they
choose the torque motor as the power source where the SEA was designed to compensate
the speed requirement. In terms of power, we generally consider that torque motor is
suitable for SEA, while the high-speed motor is suitable for PEA. A single spring should
be chosen as far as possible, rather than the combination of SEA and PEA, otherwise it
increases the mass of the system and increases the difficulty of control. If the optimization
result is always the combination of SEA and PEA, the main reason may be the unreasonable
setting of transmission ratio.

6. Conclusions
For the EHA prosthesis with PEA as the actuation concept, we conducted a top-down
design and optimized the three parameters of transmission ratio, spring stiffness, and equi-
librium point after selecting the motor, and then proposed the mechanical structure design
and control system design of the prosthesis. In order to verify the driving capability of the
designed EHA prosthesis, we initially conducted rapid response experiments and loading
experiments on the test bench, and the results showed that the modified prosthesis could
meet the output capability requirements for level walking at normal speed. Conducting
level walking experiments is the next step planned to verify the performance of the control
system as well as PEA in walking. In addition, the prosthesis designed in this study is
only suitable for level walking and a larger ROM and adjustable springs are required to
accommodate more active tasks. Furthermore, we would like to emphasize that EHA can
combine the properties of mechanical systems with hydraulic systems to achieve more
forms of actuation concept. The literature [27] proves that a hydraulic damping prosthesis
is more helpful to the COT of the human body than the ESR prosthesis. The literature [28]
shows that adding series damping may be more helpful to the human body during the
process of descending stairs. Therefore, this study initially verified the output performance
of EHA. Combined with previous studies, the author believes that EHA provides more
ideas in the design of wearable devices.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Q.H., H.X. and B.L.; methodology, Q.H. and B.L.; software,
B.L.; validation, Q.H. and B.L.; formal analysis, B.L.; investigation, Q.H.; resources, Q.H.; data
curation, B.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Q.H. and B.L.; writing—review and editing, Q.H.;
visualization, B.L.; supervision, Q.H. and H.X.; project administration, Q.H.; funding acquisition,
Q.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by National Key R&D Program of China, Research and applica-
tion of key technology of intelligent powered lower-limb prosthesis system project (2018YFB1307300).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 234 13 of 14

Data Availability Statement: The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Össur. Life without Limitations. Available online: https://www.ossur.com/region-selector (accessed on 30 September 2022).
2. Waters, R.L.; Mulroy, S. The Energy Expenditure of Normal and Pathologic Gait. Gait Posture 1999, 9, 207–231. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
3. Winter, D.A. Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Gait: Normal, Elderly and Pathological, 2nd ed.; The National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: Washington, DC, USA, 1991.
4. Palmer, M.L. Sagittal Plane Characterization of Normal Human Ankle Function across a Range of Walking Gait Speeds; Massachusetts
Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002; p. 74.
5. Au, S.K.; Herr, H.; Weber, J.; Martinez-Villalpando, E.C. Powered Ankle-Foot Prosthesis for the Improvement of Amputee
Ambulation. In Proceedings of the 2007 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology
Society, Lyon, France, 22–26 August 2007; pp. 3020–3026.
6. Au, S.K.; Weber, J.; Herr, H. Powered Ankle—Foot Prosthesis Improves Walking Metabolic Economy. IEEE Trans. Robot. 2009, 25,
51–66. [CrossRef]
7. Pratt, G.A.; Williamson, M.M. Series Elastic Actuators. In Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on
Intelligent Robots and Systems. Human Robot Interaction and Cooperative Robots, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 5–9 August 1995;
Volume 1, pp. 399–406.
8. Paluska, D.; Herr, H. Series Elasticity and Actuator Power Output. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, ICRA 2006, Orlando, FL, USA, 15–19 May 2006; pp. 1830–1833.
9. Hitt, J.; Sugar, T.; Holgate, M.; Bellman, R.; Hollander, K. Robotic Transtibial Prosthesis with Biomechanical Energy Regeneration.
Ind. Robot Int. J. 2009, 36, 441–447. [CrossRef]
10. Hitt, J.K.; Sugar, T.G.; Holgate, M.; Bellman, R. An Active Foot-Ankle Prosthesis with Biomechanical Energy Regeneration. J. Med.
Devices 2010, 4, 011003. [CrossRef]
11. Bellman, R.D.; Holgate, M.A.; Sugar, T.G. SPARKy 3: Design of an Active Robotic Ankle Prosthesis with Two Actuated Degrees of
Freedom Using Regenerative Kinetics. In Proceedings of the 2008 2nd IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical
Robotics and Biomechatronics, Scottsdale, AZ, USA, 19–22 October 2008; pp. 511–516.
12. Grimmer, M.; Holgate, M.; Holgate, R.; Boehler, A.; Ward, J.; Hollander, K.; Sugar, T.; Seyfarth, A. A Powered Prosthetic Ankle
Joint for Walking and Running. Biomed. Eng. OnLine 2016, 15, 141. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Carney, M.; Herr, H. Energetic Consequences of Series and Parallel Springs in Lower-Extremity Powered Prostheses; engrXiv: Menomonie,
WI, USA, 2019.
14. Cherelle, P.; Mathijssen, G.; Wang, Q.; Vanderborght, B.; Lefeber, D. Advances in Propulsive Bionic Feet and Their Actuation
Principles. Adv. Mech. Eng. 2014, 6, 984046. [CrossRef]
15. Verstraten, T.; Geeroms, J.; Mathijssen, G.; Convens, B.; Vanderborght, B.; Lefeber, D. Optimizing the Power and Energy
Consumption of Powered Prosthetic Ankles with Series and Parallel Elasticity. Mech. Mach. Theory 2017, 116, 419–432. [CrossRef]
16. Sup, F.; Varol, H.A.; Mitchell, J.; Withrow, T.J.; Goldfarb, M. Preliminary Evaluations of a Self-Contained Anthropomorphic
Transfemoral Prosthesis. IEEE ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2009, 14, 667–676. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Van den Bossche, D. The a 380 Flight control electrohydrostatic actuators, achievements and lessons learnt. In Proceedings of the
25th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, Hamburg, Germany, 3–8 September 2006.
18. Electrohydrostatic. Available online: https://www.moog.com/products/actuators-servoactuators/actuation-technologies/
electrohydrostatic.html (accessed on 30 September 2022).
19. Kaminaga, H.; Yamamoto, T.; Ono, J.; Nakamura, Y. Backdrivable Miniature Hydrostatic Transmission for Actuation of Anthropo-
morphic Robot Hands. In Proceedings of the 2007 7th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, Pittsburgh, PA,
USA, 29 November–1 December 2007; pp. 36–41.
20. Kaminaga, H.; Ono, J.; Nakashima, Y.; Nakamura, Y. Development of Backdrivable Hydraulic Joint Mechanism for Knee Joint of
Humanoid Robots. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Kobe, Japan, 12–17
May 2009; pp. 1577–1582.
21. Yu, T.; Plummer, A.R.; Iravani, P.; Bhatti, J.; Zahedi, S.; Moser, D. The Design, Control, and Testing of an Integrated Electrohydro-
static Powered Ankle Prosthesis. IEEE ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2019, 24, 1011–1022. [CrossRef]
22. Fang, J.; Wang, X.; Li, R.; Wang, S.; Wang, W. Active Ankle Prosthesis Powered by Electrohydrostatic Actuation Technology:
Design and Implementation. In Proceedings of the CSAA/IET International Conference on Aircraft Utility Systems (AUS 2018),
Guiyang, China, 19–22 June 2018; pp. 1170–1175.
23. Tessari, F.; Galluzzi, R.; Tonoli, A.; Amati, N.; Laffranchi, M.; De Michieli, L. Analysis, Development and Evaluation of Electro-
Hydrostatic Technology for Lower Limb Prostheses Applications. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference
on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 24 October 2019–24 January 2020; pp. 3377–3382.
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 234 14 of 14

24. Huang, Q.; Li, B.; Jia, F.; Wang, P. A Novel Design of Electro-Hydraulic Driven Active Powered Ankle-Foot Prosthesis. In
Intelligent Robotics and Applications; Liu, X.-J., Nie, Z., Yu, J., Xie, F., Song, R., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer
International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 13013, pp. 622–630, ISBN 978-3-030-89094-0.27.
25. Zhao, G.; Grimmer, M.; Seyfarth, A. The Mechanisms and Mechanical Energy of Human Gait Initiation from the Lower-Limb
Joint Level Perspective. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 22473. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Liu, H.; Huang, Q.; Tong, Z. Simulation and Analysis of a Full-Active Electro-Hydrostatic Powered Ankle Prosthesis. In
Proceedings of the 2019 19th International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR), Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2–6 December 2019;
pp. 81–86.
27. Askew, G.N.; McFarlane, L.A.; Minetti, A.E.; Buckley, J.G. Energy Cost of Ambulation in Trans-Tibial Amputees Using a Dynamic-
Response Foot with Hydraulic versus Rigid ‘Ankle’: Insights from Body Centre of Mass Dynamics. J. NeuroEng. Rehabil. 2019, 16,
39. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Eslamy, M.; Grimmer, M.; Rinderknecht, S.; Seyfarth, A. Does It Pay to Have a Damper in a Powered Ankle Prosthesis? A
Power-Energy Perspective. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR),
Seattle, WA, USA, 24–26 June 2013; pp. 1–8.