Mechatronics 23 (2013) 805–812

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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

Fractional order human arm dynamics with variability analyses q

Inés Tejado a,b,⇑, Duarte Valério a, Pedro Pires a, Jorge Martins a
a
LAETA/IDMEC, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
b
Industrial Engineering School, University of Extremadura, Av. Elvas, 06006 Badajoz, Spain

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

Article history: This paper uses experimental data to model the human arm at the elbow joint, using both third order
Received 30 January 2013 integer dynamic models, commonly found in the literature, and fractional order models (involving deriv-
Revised 2 May 2013 atives of fractional order, between 1.2 and 1.4). The latter models prove to be superior, as they provide a
Accepted 6 May 2013
better adjustment, with less parameters, with lower parameter uncertainty, and without instability prob-
Available online 25 June 2013
lems. These novel results for modelling the human arm are in line with published literature suggesting
that muscles may be profitably modelled with fractional derivatives.
Keywords:
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Human arm
Modelling
Fractional models
Levy method

1. Introduction dimension nature, is particularly adapted to model complex sys-

When developing control architectures for physical human–ro-
bot interaction, it is often necessary to use a model of the human
operator. Controlling a robot to behave like a musculo-skeletal sys-
tem lowers the dynamic discontinuity between the operator’s arm
and the robotic arm, which in turn gives the operator the physical
feeling of working with a human assistant rather than a machine.
In one of the possible applications, co-manipulation in robotic sur-
gery, all this contributes to a safer physical interaction, to an in-
crease in surgeon comfort and ergonomics, and at the outset
wins over the traditional scepticism surgeons have to robotic inter-
vention in the operating room. Refer e.g. to [1–4] for remarkable
opportunities offered by integrating human and robot into a single
system.
In what concerns human arm models, it is commonly accepted
to consider third order integer dynamic models for the arm’s
intrinsic components [5–9]; other more complex models for the
human arm were also proposed, applying different methods for
the identification (see e.g. [10–13]). Some recent works highlight
a fractal structure of muscles. Such a fractal structure consolidates
the approach based on the use of a non-integer model to character-
ise its dynamic behaviour. A fractional model, due to its infinite
q
This work was partially supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia,
through IDMEC under LAETA, and by FCT grants with references SFRH/BPD/81106/
2011, PTDC/EME-CRO/099333/2008 and PTDC/EME-CRO/114571/2009.
⇑ Corresponding author at: Industrial Engineering School, University of Extrema-
dura, Av. Elvas, 06006 Badajoz, Spain. Tel.: +34 924289300x86767.
E-mail addresses: ines.tejado@ist.utl.pt, itejbal@unex.es (I. Tejado), duarte.valerio
@ist.utl.pt (D. Valério), pedropires@ist.utl.pt (P. Pires), jorgemartins@ist.utl.pt
(J. Martins).
tems with few parameters and to obtain an adequate exploitable
model [14]. To this respect, muscles of several species, including
human muscles, have been successfully modelled by fractional dif-
ferential equations (see e.g. [15–18]). Likewise, non-integer models
play an important role in describing dynamical properties of linear
viscoelastic systems, as in case of muscles or mechanical systems
in general. Their suitability has been verified in numerous occa-
sions (even if often only empirically) [19]. However, up to now
fractional identification methods have not been applied to human
arm dynamics.
Given this motivation, the aim of this paper is threefold:
1. Measure, record and characterise the intrinsic dynamics of the
human arm under muscle co-contraction by extending the
method performed in [5] to fractional order models, with
the measured force at the hand as model input and the
measured motor angle – instead of the position – as output.
2. Analyse the variability of the identified model.
3. Offer a comparative study with the third-order models often
adopted in the literature, as mentioned above.
It is worth remarking that this is the first step to achieve the fi-
nal objective of this work, viz., to develop physical human–robot
interaction control schemes.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2
reviews the basic ideas of fractional models used later on, based
upon fractional derivatives and integrals. Section 3 describes the
experiments and processing performed to estimate the frequency
response of the human arm. In Section 4, the dynamic arm models
identified are presented, including a comparison with other models

0957-4158/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2013.05.003
806 I. Tejado et al. / Mechatronics 23 (2013) 805–812

reported in the literature. Finally, Section 5 draws the conclusions multiple are called commensurable. If the said least common multi-
of this paper. ple is 1, we have a usual, integer transfer function.

2. Fractional derivatives, integrals, calculus, dynamics and 3. Methods

models
This section addresses the two-stage method used to identify
Fractional, or non-integer, derivatives and integrals generalise the dynamics of the human arm. Firstly, details of the subjects,
the derivatives and integrals we know from Calculus, which only equipments and trials are given and, then, the subsequent data
exist for integer orders of differentiation or integration, such as processing to estimate the frequency response of the arm is
d3 f ðxÞ
Rx Rx
or 0 0 f ðxÞdx dx. Fractional Calculus allows orders that are explained.
dx3
not integer. Calling it fractional, or non-integer, is slightly incor-
rect, since it encompasses integer, fractional, irrational and com- 3.1. Subjects
plex orders. In this paper, only real orders are used.
Of course, only the most basic ideas and definitions can be Nineteen healthy subjects – nine female, ten male, ageing from
touched in this section. For more details on fractional calculus, 25 to 66 – without any known musculo-skeletal injuries of the
see e.g. [20–24,14]. higher limbs volunteered to participate in this study with prior
Let functional operator D, associated to order n 2 Z, be consent, using their right arm. (Actually, the results of one of the
8 dn f ðtÞ males ended out being excluded, as they were clearly outliers,
>
< dtn ; if n 2 N; and there were doubts about correct positioning during experi-
n
c Dt f ðtÞ ¼ f ðtÞ; if n ¼ 0; ð1Þ ments, so results in Section 4 are presented for nine males and nine
>
: R t nþ1
c D t f ðtÞdt; if n 2 Z : females.)
c

Terminal c is only needed when n 2 Z , because when n 2 Zþ 0 oper- 3.2. Equipments

ator D is local. It can be proved by mathematical induction that
X
n   Experiments were performed using a Kollmorgen direct drive
n
n
ð1Þk f ðt  khÞ motor D061M-23-1310 model in current control mode, which
d f ðtÞ k ð2Þ
Dn f ðtÞ ¼ ¼ lim k¼0 ; n 2 N: was able to produce 5.3 N m continuous torque and 16.9 N m peak
n
dt n h!0 h torque. For safety reasons, the motor rotation angle had a limited
Combinations of a things, b at a time need not be restricted to range of action of 0.9 rad in both directions around the zero-point.
a; b 2 Zþ The motor current was controlled using an advanced Kollmorgen
0 , since they can be generalised using function Gamma (that
is a generalisation of the factorial, verifying CðnÞ ¼ ðn  1Þ!; n 2 N) as drive (AKD) controller with a 16-bit analogue input used for the
8 current reference input and an encoder output emulator for the
Cðaþ1Þ
>
> ; if a; b; a  b R Z ; measured angle, with a 65,535 pulses/revolution resolution. An
> Cðbþ1ÞCðabþ1Þ
>
  >
< b aluminium horizontal link was attached to the rotatory centre of
a ð1Þ CðbaÞ
if a 2 Z ^ b 2 Zþ0 ;
¼ Cðbþ1ÞCðaÞ ; ð3Þ the motor, with a handle and a laser pointer mounted at its end.
b >
> 0;
>
> if ½ðb 2 Z _ b  a 2 NÞ ^ a R Z  The laser was used to point the position of the arm-link group on
>
:
_ða; b 2 Z ^ jaj > jbjÞ: a screen which was in front of the motor; at the beginning of each
trial, the pointer was aligned with the zero position marked in the
Having this in mind, (2) can be generalised as screen. To measure forces applied by the subjects in the Y axis, a
tc
b h c   JR3 12-degree-of-freedom DSP-based force sensor, connected to a
X a
ð1Þk f ðt  khÞ PCI-BUS dual receiver board, was placed at the handle aligned
k ð4Þ
a k¼0 accordingly with the scheme in Fig. 1. The JR3 measured linear
c Dt f ðtÞ ¼ limþ a :
h!0 h forces and moments along with linear and angular accelerations.
Its output was a 16-bit digital signal that could be associated with
Notice that the upper limit of the summation is diverging to þ1. a digital filter directly implemented into the JR3 DSP sensor. For
When a 2 N, all terms with k > a will be zero, according to (3). Thus
data acquisition, an Intel I7 computer with XPC-Target operating
(4) reduces to (2) when h > 0. (Actually, to be precise, because h > 0
in (4), we will have only a right derivative.) This is the only case in
which the summation has a finite number of terms and the result
does not depend on c. (In other words, D is a local operator only if
a is non-negative integer; otherwise, it depends on past values of
the function.) The upper limit was set so that, if a 2 Z , (4) reduces
to a Riemann integral.
Eq. (4) is the Grünwald–Letnikoff definition of fractional deriv-
atives; not the only one possible, but the simplest to introduce. It
can be shown that
8 a
>
> s FðsÞ; if a 2 R ;
>
>
  < FðsÞ; if a ¼ 0;
L 0 Dat f ðtÞ ¼ ae1
dX ð5Þ
>
>
> a sk 0 Dtak1 f ð0Þ; if a 2 Rþ ;
: s FðsÞ 
>
Fig. 1. Closed-loop block scheme for identification of human arm dynamics.
k¼0
F ref ; F applied and F measured are the input, applied (by the subject) and measured (by the
and so, if Laplace transforms are taken of fractional differential sensor) forces, respectively; href ; h and herror are the reference, measured and error
angles, respectively (href ¼ 0, i.e., subjects are required to maintain the link at zero-
equations with zero initial conditions, fractional transfer functions point); L is the link length (for this experiment, L ¼ 0:35 m); K I and K torque are the
(i.e. transfer functions with non-integer powers of s) make their motor current control gain and torque constant, respectively; and ID ; I1 M and IC are
appearance. Those with all orders multiple of some least common the reference, measured and applied currents of the motor, respectively.
 I. Tejado et al. / Mechatronics 23 (2013) 805–812
system running at 2 kHz frequency was used. This target computer
had a MF624 Humusoft analogue–digital PCI board for digital-ana-
logue communications and a JR3 PCI-BUS dual receiver board.
Let us consider the motor–link–sensor rotational rigid body
dynamics as follows:
I€h þ F ¼ s;
where I and F are the inertia and the friction term, respectively, and
the applied torque s is
s ¼ K Torque IC ;
being K Torque and IC the motor torque constant and current input,
respectively. In (6), it is desirable to eliminate all the motor–link–
sensor dynamics in order to be able to measure only the human
arm dynamics. To this end, the applied motor torque was
s ¼ sDyn þ sExternal ;
in which sDyn refers to a dynamic compensation given by
sDyn ¼ bI €h þ bF ¼ bI €h þ Cb h_ þ Bb signðhÞ;
_ ð7Þ
where bI is the estimated inertia and Fb the estimated friction, com-
prising a viscous friction term Cb h_ and a static friction term B
b signðhÞ.
_ angle, hðtÞ, were recorded with a sampling frequency of 2 kHz.
It is worth remarking that compensation (7) is as good as the esti-
mation of bI and bF . For this experiment, a simple Coulomb friction
model was sufficient, since the motor in question is a direct drive
motor without the drawbacks of gear backlash. Moreover, to in-
crease the force control robustness, a PI controller was added as
shown in the block scheme in Fig. 1. To attenuate the importance
of the motor force controller dynamics on the identification loop,
it was assumed that, for this control implementation, the motor
force controller has a higher bandwidth than the one presented
by the human arm. Therefore, the experimental PI tuning results
into a motor controller bandwidth of 18 Hz, which is acceptable
for an assumed human harm bandwidth of 10 Hz.
3.3. Experiments
During each experiment, subjects were kneeling or sitting on
one side of the motor, grabbing the handle with an angle for the el-
bow of about 90° as shown in Fig. 2. Although their elbow and
wrists were not supported, they were asked not only to maintain
a firm grip on the handle but also not move their trunk, shoulder
and elbow. Likewise, during each trial the subjects were required
to keep the laser pointer at zero-point under muscle co-contraction.
In order to avoid subject fatigue, the duration of each trial was
40 s. Human anticipatory reflexes make modelling the arm dynam-
ics difficult, as it is hard to keep the arm passive to force distur-
bances. Fortunately, the more random and wide-band the force
disturbance is, the less likely it will trigger the arm’s reflexes
[5,9]. For this reason, the current study used inputs generated by
a sum of sinusoids with frequencies in the [0.12, 15] Hz range,
and limited to not exceed 4 N, to render them unpredictable by
the subjects under experiment and allow us to obtain frequency re-
Fig. 2. Experimental set-up used for collecting experimental data of human arm dynamics: frontal view (left) and top view (right).
807
sponses in the mentioned range. In particular, three types of inputs
were designed:
 Type I – Oscillations in both directions around the zero-point.
 Type II – Oscillations only in the positive side of the zero-point
ð6Þ (flexion of the elbow).
 Type III – Oscillations only in the negative side of the zero-point
(extension of the elbow).
Fig. 3 shows an example of signals involved in one of the exper-
iments for input force of type I. For each of the first 17 subjects, two
trials were performed for input force type I and one trial for types II
and III, resulting in four sets of data per subject (68 trials in total).
The two other subjects, one male and one female, performed 16
additional trials, in a total of twenty trials each: six of type I, seven
of type II, and seven of type III. The force measured by the men-
tioned sensor was practically identical to the force input. It was as-
sumed that the bandwidth for the human arm is approximated to
10 Hz, fact which justifies the selection of 15 Hz bandwidth for the
force input.
Both the force applied on the subject, F applied ðtÞ, and the motor
The desired dynamic human arm transfer function (corresponding
to the block scheme of Fig. 1) was determined as
hðsÞ
Garm ðsÞ ¼ :
F measured ðsÞ
3.4. Estimation of frequency responses
The identification of a fractional model directly from a time re-
sponse is reviewed in [25]; a survey of methods for both time and
frequency responses can be found in [20]. In this paper, it was cho-
sen to identify the dynamics of the human arm estimating a fre-
quency response from the experiments, and then applying Levy’s
method, because this was the alternative leading to the best, less
noisy results.
To estimate the frequency response, an approach for estimating
transfer functions of linear systems from spectral analysis will be
used. Spectral estimation was applied to human arm modelling
in [5,26,9]. In particular, the measured human experiment fre-
quency response is computed by using Welch’s method – by means
of the MATLAB function tfestimate – with 11 Blackmanharris-win-
dowed segments (length of the window equal to 5000), 15,000
samples and 25% overlap in order to attain smooth frequency re-
sponses. Previously, the output was filtered by a zero-phase for-
ward and reverse FIR equal ripple digital filter – applied with
MATLAB function filtfilt – designed with pass-band and stop-band fre-
quencies of 15 Hz and 18 Hz, respectively, and a passband ripple of
1 dB with 80 dB of stop-band attenuation.
Once the frequency response Gðjxp Þ; p ¼ 1; . . . ; f is found, Le-
vy’s method fits it a commensurable fractional model with fre-
quency response given by
808 I. Tejado et al. / Mechatronics 23 (2013) 805–812

Fig. 3. Example of signals involved in one experiment for input type I: (a) reference force, (b) measured force and (c) elbow angle (the first 10 s of the experiment).

Pm ka
k¼0 bk ðjxp Þ Nðjxp Þ 4.2. Fractional models
b xp Þ ¼
Gðj Pn ¼ : ð8Þ
1 þ k¼1 ak ðjxp Þ
ka Dðjxp Þ
Let us consider a general model, corresponding to frequency re-
sponse (8); its (fractional) transfer function of commensurable or-
Notice that, without loss of generality, we have made 2 a0 ¼ 1. The der a is:
 xÞ
adjustment might be done minimising GðjxÞ  Nðj DðjxÞ
, but it is eas-
2
ier to minimise instead ðGðjxÞDðjxÞ  NðjxÞÞ . For alternative for-
Pm
mulations and improvements of this identification method, see k¼0 bk s
ka
b
GðsÞ ¼ P :
[27]. n
1 þ k¼1 ak ska
It should be noticed that the use of weights to correct an exces-
sive influence of high-frequency
 2 data [28,20], or the use of itera-
tions to minimise G  ND rather than jGD  N j2 [20,29], have
Each model was identified to accurately reflect the mean value of
been attempted, without improvement in results.
the measured frequency responses in the [0.12, 15] Hz range by
means of Levy’s method in Matlab (with levy function [30]) for frac-
tional and integer order models up to third order in accordance with
4. Measured-dynamic models [5].
Commensurable orders of fractional models were found sweep-
In this section, the dynamic models for the human arm resulting ing the a 20; 2½ range, where models are stable, with a 0.1 step,
of the identification are presented. and keeping the best result.
Different models were identified for:

 inputs of type I;
4.1. Integer models  inputs of type II;
 inputs of type III;
Integer, third-order models result from considering the arm as a  all inputs at once.
mechanical system consisting of five elements – one mass, two
springs and two dampers [5–9]. The rationale behind this model Since several frequency responses had to be taken into account
is shown in Fig. 4. to find each model, there were two options:

Fig. 4. Third order translation analogue to elbow dynamics.

 I. Tejado et al. / Mechatronics 23 (2013) 805–812 809

Table 1 Table 2
Arm structure parameters for the fractional model and their variability. Arm structure parameters for the fractional model of one male and their variability.

Input Zero Poles Gain a Input Zero Poles Gain a

Re Im Re Im
All Nominal 525.73 164.45, 143.08 0 0.32 1.4 All Nominal 393.64 110.6 ±105.5 0.22 1.4
Min 521.50 159.01 0 0.13 1.3 Min 489.47 172.41 0 0.11 1.3
Max 360.51 74.39 93.42 0.34 1.4 Max 263.41 52.26 55.87 0.24 1.4
Mean 451.9 121.82 52.29 0.24 1.37 Mean 388.51 114.64 25.03 0.21 1.39
Std 49.19 22.67 22.11 0.07 0.05 Std 56.25 33.88 20.39 0.03 0.03
Type I Nominal 502.75 149.75 ±48.24 0.27 1.4 Type I Nominal 431.61 117.60 ±36.66 0.21 1.4
Min 555.85 168.87 19.69 0.07 1.2 Min 489.47 146.19 0 0.11 1.3
Max 374.90 60.87 101.95 0.34 1.4 Max 352.76 67.31 55.87 0.21 1.4
Mean 474.40 119.07 60.98 0.22 1.36 Mean 418.74 113.4 38.11 0.19 1.38
Std 55.50 31.73 21.85 0.08 0.06 Std 50.24 30.65 20.54 0.04 0.04
Type II Nominal 432.93 127.45 ±35.21 0.29 1.4 Type II Nominal 410.11 149.84, 77.24 0 0.21 1.4
Min 528.22 269.18 0 0.12 1.3 Min 445.52 172.41 0 0.21 1.4
Max 290.58 51.58 96.82 0.55 1.4 Max 346.58 110.70 36.02 0.22 1.4
Mean 432.52 118.67 45.13 0.26 1.37 Mean 410.57 143.13 5.14 0.22 1.40
Std 63.07 46.43 28.04 0.1 0.05 Std 32.17 25.47 13.61 0.005 0.00
Type III Nominal 418.47 124.64 ±52.1 0.29 1.4 Type III Nominal 345.96 93.03 ±28.7 0.22 1.4
Min 516.15 216.62 0 0.06 1.2 Min 406.43 111.11 24 0.14 1.3
Max 240.87 33.18 94.75 0.37 1.4 Max 346.58 52.26 45.86 0.24 1.4
Mean 417.47 114.14 53.88 0.25 1.37 Mean 340.54 87.22 33.7 0.21 1.39
Std 82.02 48.02 26.26 0.09 0.06 Std 52.11 19.41 7.67 0.03 0.04

 Applying Levy’s method to all frequency responses together.
This means that, for each frequency, there are many different
gains and phases to which the model should be fit. The param-
eters of the resulting models are mentioned below as
‘‘nominal’’.
 Applying Levy’s method separately to each of the frequency
responses. From the parameters of the resulting models, mean
values, extreme values, and a standard deviation can be found.
This last option is the one from which an idea of the confidence
of the results can be more easily got. The mean and the standard
deviation should suffice to describe the distribution of the values,
since the number of experiments involved is such that a normal dis-
tribution can reasonably be assumed (as done implicitly in [31]).
4.3. Identification results
Identification results are summed up in Table 1, and graphically
represented in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. Experimental and identified frequency responses for input force of (a) all types; (b) Type I; (c) Type II; and (d) Type III. Thin lines are the several frequency responses
corresponding to the measured data. Dash-dotted lines correspond to the frequency responses of the arm models.
810 I. Tejado et al. / Mechatronics 23 (2013) 805–812

Table 3 Table 5
Arm structure parameters for the fractional model of one female and their variability. Performance indices for the time responses of the fractional and integer models.

Input Zero Poles Gain a Model Input MSE ð105 Þ MAD ð103 Þ MD
Re Im Fractional All 6.21 4.64 0.138
All Nominal 480.89 98.84 ±40.22 0.16 1.3 Type I 7.15 5.25 0.138
Min 583.48 227.9 0 0.065 1.2 Type II 5.14 3.82 0.121
Max 388.31 66.17 54.98 0.374 1.3 Type III 5.11 3.84 0.136
Mean 513.78 125.01 31.97 0.2 1.33 Integer All 6.38 4.73 0.138
Std 48.23 46.58 18.74 0.08 0.06 Type I 7.22 5.31 0.138
Type I Nominal 553.45 117.60 ±36.66 0.15 1.3 Type II 5.23 4.01 0.12
Min 573.83 117.69 19.78 0.06 1.2 Type III 5.13 3.85 0.136
Max 510.84 68.69 53.68 0.17 1.3
Mean 548.42 101.26 38.19 0.14 1.28
Std 23.58 17.12 12.76 0.04 0.04
Type II Nominal 482.73 100.28 ±33.24 0.16 1.3
Models with two zeros and two poles, i.e. having the same number
Min 583.48 215.68 0 0.15 1.3
Max 464.44 94.90 41.51 0.29 1.4
of parameters as those in Table 1, are not fit for this purpose, as
Mean 510.27 134.77 24.66 0.19 1.33 their time responses do not start at zero. The best option has
Std 42.22 53.34 17.64 0.06 0.05 proved to be the structure more often found in the literature, as
Type III Nominal 525.73 164.45, 143.08 0 0.32 1.4 mentioned above in the state of the art of Section 1, with three
Min 563.46 227.9 0 0.15 1.3 poles and one zero. Parameters are given in Table 4.
Max 388.31 66.17 54.98 0.37 1.4 In order to compare and evaluate the goodness of the models in
Mean 487.61 135.61 33.95 0.26 1.36
terms of time domain responses, the following performance indi-
Std 55.73 54.56 23.65 0.09 0.05
ces were calculated for the elbow angle for the different inputs:

1. Mean square error (MSE) per sampling frequency, defined as

As a term of comparison, Tables 2 and 3 give the results for the
PN 2
two individuals that performed twenty tests each (as mentioned j¼1 ðg j  g^j Þ
above in Section 3.3). This allows putting in perspective the vari- MSE ¼ ; ð9Þ
N
ances of the parameters of models in Table 1, that were fit for
the data of all individuals. Indeed, standard deviations might seem where g j and g^j are the experimental and estimated frequency re-
significant when compared with the corresponding magnitudes. sponses, respectively, and N is the number of frequency samples.
However, they are not significantly larger that those obtained for 2. Mean absolute deviation (MAD), defined as
a single individual, as seen in Tables 2 and 3, which are lower (as PN
j¼1 jg j  g^j j
might be expected), but of comparable magnitude. This vouches MAD ¼ : ð10Þ
for the reasonableness of finding models for all individuals. N
3. Maximum deviation (MD), defined as
4.4. Comparison with the integer order model MD ¼ max jg j  g^j j: ð11Þ

Several integer models have been found as a term of compari-

son. Models with one zero and two poles, such as those in Table 1, The performance indices are summarised in Table 5, where the
but of integer order, had very poor results, and are not shown here. columns corresponding to both the MSE and the MAD are the aver-

Table 4
Arm structure parameters for the integer model and their variability.

Input Zeros Pole1 Poles2;3 Gain

Re Im Re Im
All Nominal 21.28 ±111.38 128.63 15.11 ±30.79 0.1
Min 30.8 90.8 1684.2 25 21.9 0.6
Max 4.66 112.04 512.44 6.27 43.09 1.52
Mean 16.79 99.64 189.9 14.1 31.60 0.16
Std 8.54 6.36 411.81 4.99 5.11 0.39
Type I Nominal 19.1034 ±96.96 76.59 16.43 ±35.13 0.08
Min 34.87 89.37 268.32 23.33 25.24 0.04
Max 6.48 107.86 30.37 7.47 53.57 0.28
Mean 19.30 95.78 98.28 15.06 36.83 0.1
Std 8.83 5.8 76.63 4.09 6.91 0.06
Type II Nominal 17.16 ±101.91 170.71 12.6 ±27.61 0.13
Min 35.36 82.09 645.08 20.56 22.22 13.15
Max 2.5 123.7 7653.4 6 45.2 0.4
Mean 18.71 100.87 355.36 11.6 29.75 0.67
Std 11.0 12.6 1850.2 4.1 6 3.1
Type III Nominal 10.61 ±103.19 455.59 11.16 ±28.42 0.323
Min 33.81 90.6 887.12 22.77 21.27 0.477
Max 27.16 164.08 393.36 4.36 37.03 0.574
Mean 13.62 104.35 152.8 11.02 29.77 0.102
Std 14.35 16.5 247.21 4.79 4.27 0.207
 I. Tejado et al. / Mechatronics 23 (2013) 805–812 811

x 10
−3
responses. Parts of the said responses are shown in Fig. 6; notice
8
that the input used is not the same for which models are devel-
6
oped: this corresponds to a harsher test to the models.
4 Comparing Tables 1 and 4, it can also be seen that there are
2 unstable models among the integer order ones, something which
Angle (rad)

0 never happens for fractional models (even though the zone of the
−2 complex plane where poles are stable is more narrow [32]). This,
too, is indicative of the advantages of fractional models for this
−4
system.
−6
Table 6 shows the ratio between standard deviations and mean
−8 values for both integer and fractional models. It can be seen that
Experimental
Fractional model
−10 16 Integer model
17
with only one exception fractional models have lower ratios, an-
10 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20
Time (s)
other point in favour of their greater appropriateness.

(a)
5. Conclusions
−3
x 10
8
Experimental
6 Integer model The dynamics of a human arm at the elbow joint can be mod-
Fractional model
elled with a commensurate fractional model, of order around 1.3
4
or 1.4, with one zero and two poles. Not only this model structure
2
outperforms integer order models with a similar or slightly supe-
Angle (rad)

0 rior number of parameters – including a model with two zeros

−2 and three poles, a common choice in the literature – as parameter
−4 uncertainty is clearly much smaller.
−6 While this might be solely because fractional models are good
at fitting complex dynamic behaviours, given that many studies
−8
have found (as seen in Section 1) that muscles are intrinsically of
−10
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 fractional order dynamics, it seems that these results are yet are
Time (s) another proof of that fact, which is theoretically justified as result-
ing from the muscle’s viscoelastic properties. Still, some work re-
(b) mains to be done:
−3
x 10
8
Experimental  A more careful theoretical justification of the fractional order of
6 Integer model
Fractional model the dynamics is needed.
4  Model parameters obtained may be related with age or sex, or
2 used to include the effect of muscle fatigue.
Angle (rad)

−2

−4
References
−6 [1] Taïx M, Tran MT, Ares PS, Guigon E. Generating human-like reaching
−8 movements with a humanoid robot: a computational approach. J Comput Sci
2013;4(4):269–84.
−10 [2] Bar-Cohen Y. Humanlike robots: the upcoming revolution in robotics. Proc SPIE
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
2009;7401:7402.
Time (s) [3] Park S, Lim H, Kim Bs, Song Jb. Development of safe mechanism for surgical

(c) robots using equilibrium point control method. In: Larsen R, Nielsen M,
Sporring J, editors. Medical image computing and computer-assisted
intervention – MICCAI 2006. Lecture notes in computer science, vol.
Fig. 6. Part of time responses of obtained nominal models, compared with 4190. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2006. p. 570–7. ISBN 978-3-540-44707-8.
experimental data, for a type II input. Models are those obtained for: (a) all types; [4] Potkonjak V, Tzafestas S, Kostic D, Djordjevic G. Human-like behavior of robot
(b) Type I; and (c) Type III. arms: general considerations and the handwriting task – Part I: Mathematical
description of human-like motion: distributed positioning and virtual fatigue.
Robot Comput-Integr Manuf 2001;17(4):305–15.
[5] Fu MJ, Cavusoglu MC. Human-arm-and-hand-dynamic model with variability
Table 6 analyses for a stylus-based haptic interface. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cyber Part B:
Ratios of standard deviations to mean values of parameters. Cyber 2012;PP(99):1–12.
[6] Diaz I, Gil J. Influence of vibration modes and human operator on the stability
Input Fractional models Integer models of haptic rendering. IEEE Trans Robot 2010;26(1):60–165.
[7] Speich JE, Shao L, Goldfarb M. Modeling the human hand as it interacts with a
Average for all poles and Gain Average for all poles Gain (%)
telemanipulation system. Mechatronics 2005;15(9):1127–42.
zeros (%) (%) and zeros (%)
[8] de Vlugt E, Schouten AC, van der Helm FC. Adaptation of reflexive feedback
All 24 29 34 244 during arm posture to different environments. Biol Cyber 2002;87(1):10–26.
Type I 25 36 31 60 [9] van der Helm FC, Schouten AC, de Vlugt E, Brouwn GG. Identification of
Type II 39 38 25 463 intrinsic and reflexive components of human arm dynamics during postural
Type III 37 36 54 203 control. J Neurosci Methods 2002;119(1):1–14.
[10] Adewusi S, Rakheja S, Marcotte P. Biomechanical models of the human hand-
arm to simulate distributed biodynamic responses for different postures. Int J
Indust Ergonom 2012;42(2):249–60.
[11] Nagarsheth H, Savsani P, Patel M. Modeling and dynamics of human arm. In:
age of all results. As can be seen, the responses of the fractional or- Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE international conference on automation science
der models are better. Fractional order models were approximated and engineering (CASE’08); 2008, p. 924–8.
[12] Mobasser F, Hashtrudi-Zaad K. A method for online estimation of human arm
by a 10th order transfer function in the [0.1, 100] rad/s frequency dynamics. In: Proceedings of th 28th annual international conference of the
range, using the Crone method [20], to obtain their time domain IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBS’06); 2006. p. 2412–6.
812 I. Tejado et al. / Mechatronics 23 (2013) 805–812
[13] Venture G, Yamane K, Nakamura Y. Identification of human musculo-tendon
subject specific dynamics using musculo-skeletal computations and non linear
least square. In: Proceedings of the 1st IEEE/RAS-EMBS international
conference on biomedical robotics and biomechatronics (BioRob’06); 2006.
p. 211–6.
[14] Magin RL. Fractional calculus in bioengineering. Begell House; 2004.
[15] Sommacal L, Melchior P, Oustaloup A, Cabelguen JM, Ijspeert AJ. Fractional
multi-models of the frog gastrocnemius muscle. J Vib Control 2008;14(9–
10):1415–30.
[16] Sommacal L, Melchior P, Dossat A, Cabelguen J, Petit JM, Oustaloup A, et al.
Improvement of the muscle fractional multimodel for low-rate stimulation.
Biomed Signal Process Control 2007;2:226–33.
[17] Sommacal L, Melchior P, Cabelguen JM, Oustaloup A, Ijspeert AJ. Advances in
fractional calculus: theoretical developments and applications in physics and
engineering. Springer; 2007. p. 271–85 [Chap. Fractional Multimodels of the
Gastrocnemius Muscle for Tetanus Pattern].
[18] Djordjevic VD, Jaric J, Fabry B, Fredberg JJ, Stamenovic D. Fractional derivatives
embody essential features of cell rheological behavior. Ann Biomed Eng
2003;31:692–9.
[19] Mainardi F. Fractional calculus and waves in linear viscoelasticity. an
introduction to mathematical models. London: Imperial College Press; 2010.
[20] Valério D, Sá da Costa J. An introduction to fractional control. IET, Stevenage;
2013.
[21] Valério D, Sá daCosta J. An introduction to single-input, single-output
fractional control. IET Control Theory Appl 2011;5(8):1033–57.
[22] Podlubny I. Fractional differential equations: an introduction to fractional
derivatives fractional differential equations to methods of their solution and
some of their applications. San Diego: Academic Press; 1999.
[23] Miller KS, Ross B. An introduction to the fractional calculus and fractional
differential equations. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1993.
[24] Samko SG, Kilbas AA, Marichev OI. Fractional integrals and
derivatives. Yverdon: Gordon and Breach; 1993.
[25] Malti R, Victor S, Oustaloup A. Advances in system identification using
fractional models. ASME J Comput Nonlinear Dyn 2008;3:021401.
[26] Palazzolo J, Ferraro M, Krebs H, Lynch D, Volpe B, et al. Stochastic estimation of
arm mechanical impedance during robotic stroke rehabilitation. IEEE Trans
Neural Syst Rehabilit Eng 2007;15(1):94–103.
[27] Valério D, Ortigueira MD, Sá da Costa J. Identifying a transfer function from a
frequency response. ASME J Comput Nonlinear Dyn 2008;3(2):021207.
[28] Vinagre B. Modelado y control de sistemas dinámicos caracterizados por
ecuaciones íntegro-diferenciales de orden fraccional. PhD thesis, Universidad
Nacional de Educación a Distancia; Madrid; 2001.
[29] Sanathanan CK, Koerner J. Transfer function synthesis as a ratio of two
complex polynomials. IEEE Trans Autom Control 1963;8:56–8.
[30] Valério D, Sá da Costa J. Ninteger: a fractional control toolbox for Matlab. In:
Proceedings of the 1st IFAC workshop on fractional differentiation and its
applications, Bordeaux; 2004.
[31] Selen LPJ, Beek PJ, van Dieën JH. Impedance is modulated to meet accuracy
demands during goal-directed arm movements. Exp Brain Res
2006;172(1):129–38.
[32] Matignon D. Stability properties for generalized fractional differential systems.
ESAIM Proc 1998;5:145–58.