International Journal of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS Vol:17 No:05 148

Single Link Bilateral Haptics Control with PD

Controller and Geared DC-Motor in Robotic
Rehabilitation Technology
Sari Abdo Ali 1, Muhammad Fahmi Miskon1
Ahmad Zaki Hj Shukor1Marwan Qaid Mohammed
1
Fakulti Kejuruteraan Elektrik, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka.
Center of Excellence in Robotic and Industrial Automation, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka.
Hang Tuah Jaya, 76100 Durian Tunggal, Melaka, Malaysia.
1
sary_ad@yahoo.com

Abstract— This paper presents a primary results in bilateral human walking, they must be programmed with trajectories
control as a human machine interaction. The purposed method of walking. Preprogrammed trajectories exoskeletons such as
of the research is to develop a system that synchronize two in[13] cannot adapt any change in walking. Moreover, these
systems by copy the position and the force of a system and exoskeletons are equipped with load cells and sensors in
implement in the other. The bilateral controller will be applied
order to perform walking and track the angles of the joints
in rehabilitation robot. In previous researches, the
rehabilitation robots is designed using trajectories of walking and to measure the forces in the joints. As explained further
which limit the robot to single way of motion. The control later, the proposed system does not use any sensors or load
system contains PD controller and master and slave cells with high position accuracy and transparent force
teleoperation system, four channel control architecture, teleoperation. The proposed method consists of two system,
disturbance observer DOB and reaction force observer RFOB. master system and slave system. Both systems have 1 DOF
The master manipulator is attached to human operator. The manipulators contain the same components.
slave manipulator is attached to a patient. The slave system will
produce similar motion as the master manipulator with the The idea of the controller is to help stroke patients to train
same position and force. The paper shows the methodology the effected leg and regain walking ability. It is basically
followed to implement the system as well as the hardware and
based on trainer and patient device. The trainer move during
the results.
the activity and his motion is copied to the patient. The
Index Term— DC-motor modelling, PD controller, haptic advantage of this bilateral controller is that, if the patient was
control. Haptic teleoperation. unable to move the effected joint of his leg then the trainer
will feel the resistance of the patient leg. It will prevent
training injury. The controller also can be used design a self-
I. INTRODUCTION
trained device for the lower limb as in figure 1. The patient
Haptics and rehabilitation robotics are two active
himself can attach the master manipulator to his healthy leg
application fields in modern science. Haptics can be applied
to train the effected leg for exercises that can be performed
in a new approach to design an exoskeleton for
rehabilitation. A lot of researchers recently are involved in for sitting position.
developing rehabilitation robots due to the increasing number
The paper is organized as follow: section 1 is an
of patients. According to the American heart association, the
introduction. Section two discusses the hardware setup of the
number of strokes patients increased to 33 million in experiment. Section three shows the motor mathematical
2010[1]. Apart from that, there are many types of model and PD controller design. Section four is about the
rehabilitation robots for the lower limb. Each type is bilateral controller design. Section five is about the result
designed and implemented using different methods of
and discussion. Section five is a conclusion and future work.
controlling. The invented systems have functions treated
people in different poses and ways. The rehabilitation
devices can be stationary or movable. The patients go
through foot gate training, ankle training, over ground
training, stationary and treadmill training[2]. The
exoskeleton device must be accurate, precise and beneficial
for patients. Rehabilitation robots are checked by clinical
community to validate it and prevent any use of devices that
might harm the patients. The crucial aim of the exoskeleton
robots is to help its patients and therapists in therapy process.
Exoskeleton systems in BLEEX [3], NTU [4], Alex (active-
leg-exoskeleton) [5] HAL [6], [7]., IMAMS[8] Lobes[9]
[10], ANDROS [11] and COWALK [12] are human like
walking exoskeletons. In order for these systems to perform

171505-4848-IJMME-IJENS © October 2017 IJENS

IJENS
 International Journal of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS Vol:17 No:05 149

Table I
The technical features of micro-box controller
CPU Celeron® M 1GHz, 256MB DDR

Memory 64MB , Flash Card

Input Power Input Power Min. 50W.

Interface Support Serial Port & TCP/IP

ADC - Build-in I/O 8-ch,16-bit A/D

DAC - Build-in I/O 8-ch 16-bit D/A

Digital I/O 8-bit Digital I/O

Encoder 4-ch with 24-bit Encoder

Digital I/O 8-bit from Parallel Port

Fig. 1. concptual design of the rehabilitation device Power Supply

II. EXPERIMENTAL HARDWARE Figure 3 shows the power supply that is used to provide three
types of outputs: +5 V and 10A the second port +15V and
Hardware requirement of this experiment: 3.5A and the third port 15V and 1A.
 Geared Servo-Motor
 Encoders
 Motor driver
 Micro-Box 2000/2000C
 Power Supply

The most important features of the micro-box: high-

performance, low-power consumption industrial PC,
compact size, Stand-alone ability, AD/DA, Encoder and
DI/O modules
Fig. 3. Power supply port

In the experimental setup, there are two systems used the

same components for each system. Each setup uses a rotary
planar robotic arm, a geared-DC-motor. As figure 3 shows
that, each Faulhaber DC Micro-motor is attached to
incremental encoder with 5000 pulse/revolution. The gear
head is attached to the motor to maximize the output torque
of the DC-motor shaft. The motor driver is used in this
experiment as intermediary link between the micro-box and
the motor. The current that is produced by the micro-box is
not sufficient to actuate the DC-motor. Figure 4 illustrate the
Fig. 2. Micro-Box 2000/2000C setup of the experiment hardware.

Micro-box specification:

Micro-box is real time device used to interface the hardware

component with programmer host such as computers. Table I
shows some of the important features of micro-box
controller.

171505-4848-IJMME-IJENS © October 2017 IJENS

IJENS
 International Journal of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS Vol:17 No:05 150

Faulhaber motor parameters which will be used to derive the

motor transfer function. After reaching the response of the
transfer function, PD controller parameters are selected
based on the root locus.
Table II
Faulhaber motor parameters in the datasheet
Parameters Variable Value

Resistance Ra 0.16Ω

Fig. 4. Faulhaber 3863H012CR DC-Micromotor Inductance La 45uH

Torque constant Kt 19.9 mNm/A
Inertia J 120 gcm2
Back-emf constant Kt 2.08mV.min
Viscous coefficient B 91.4uN.s.m/rad

Fig. 7. The equivalent cricuit of the DC-motor

Fig. 5. The complete set up of the experiment hardware
From the motor internal electric circuit in Figure 6, the
differential equation for the armature circuit is given by:

III. PD CONTROLLER AND MOTOR MODEL

di(t ) (3)
In this experiment, the system is designed to synchronize the e(t )  La  Rai (t )  eb (t )
dt
motion of two motors (position and force). To achieve that, a
PD controller is needed. Moreover, the PD controller is used The voltage is back emf of the motor. It is proportional to the
in this experiment specifically because it shows better result motor shaft speed that is given by:
than PID or PI when integrated with disturbance observer.
PID and PI both have integrators which make them not eb (t )  K b (t ) (4)
suitable to be integrated with the DOB. DOB works as an
integrator in the system. Besides that, designing the PD gains Laplace transform is applied to (3) and (4), to get:
is simple which is being done using root locus method.
Figure 4 shows the Simulink block diagram of PD. E ( s )  K b ( s ) (5)
I ( s) 
La s  Ra

And the motor torque is obtained through (6) and (7).

However, (7) is the generated torque in the motor which is
proportional to the current in the armature:

d (t ) (6)
 m (t )  J  B (t )
Fig. 6. PD controller block diagram dt

𝐾𝑑 = 2𝛿𝜔𝑛 (1)  m (t )  Kt i(t ) (7)

𝐾𝑃 = 𝜔𝑛 2 (2) Equate the right sides of equations (6),(7) and applying

Laplace transform to the new equation, (8 is obtained):
The Kp and Kd values can be selected by manual tuning of
random values until the best response is gained. However,
Kt I (s)  J s (s)  B (s) (8)
this method is not systematic or efficient. A better way is to
mathematically model the motor that is used in the
experiment based on the motor datasheet. Table II shows

171505-4848-IJMME-IJENS © October 2017 IJENS

IJENS
 International Journal of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS Vol:17 No:05 151

As the input of the motor is voltage and the output is position shows the response of the PD controller in the motor
the transfer function is shown in (9) which can be obtained hardware with small settling time and small overshoot. The
from (3.3) and (3.6), it follows that: PD is tested in the hardware using square wave step signal.
workspace
( s)
45
Kt (9)
G( s)   Reference

E ( s)  La s  Ra  Js  B   Kb Kt 
40 PD

35

30

25

Position
20

15

10

-5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time
Fig. 10. The response of PD controller in the hardware

IV. BILATERAL CONTROLLER

Fig. 8. the mathematical model response with Kp=1
The response of the motor model in figure 8 is result of the
transfer function without a PD controller. Although, the
response took long time to be stable, it shows that the
mathematical model is correct. From this response, the
parameters of the PD controller are designed through the root
locus (root loci). Using SISO tool to choose Kd value that
eliminate the steady state error and Kp to improve the transit
response. Kp Kd values are 1 and 0.08 respectively. Figure 9
shows the response of the model after implementing PD
controller.
Closed Loop Simulation Results
1.4
The bilateral controller is acceleration-base method based on
two modes, the differential mode and the common mode.
The differential mode in equation 10 is for position tracking
control between the master and the slave manipulator. The
difference should be zero for successful tracking. The
common mode in equation 11 is for force control from the
applied force to master manipulator and the reaction force
from the slave manipulator.
𝜃 = 𝜃𝑚 − 𝜃𝑠 = 0 (10)
𝜏 = 𝜏𝑚 + 𝜏𝑠 = 0 (11)
The acceleration- based method is applied through equations
12 and 13 in bilateral control.

𝜃̈𝐷𝑖𝑓 = −𝑐𝑝 (𝜃𝑚 − 𝜃𝑠 ) (12)

1.2

1 𝜃̈𝑐𝑜𝑚 = −𝑐𝑝 (𝜏𝑚 + 𝜏𝑠 ) (12)

𝑐𝑝 = 𝑘𝑝 + 𝑘𝑑 𝑠
Position

0.8
(14)
0.6
Cp and in equation 12 & 13 represent the PD controller that
0.4 is shown in equation 14. The equation of PD can be written
in the bilateral controller as shown in equation 15.
0.2

0
𝑢(𝑡) = 𝑘𝑝 (𝜃𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝜃̇ ) + 𝑘𝑑 (𝜃̇𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝜃̇ ) (15)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(sec)
Disturbance observer
Fig. 9. The response of PD controller in the motor’s model A question might be raised on how is the bilateral controller
is working to synchronize both manipulators. From the
Figure 10 shows the response of implementing the PD experimental setup, one can recognize that the encoder is the
controller in the actual hardware. The Kp value here is answer for synchronizing the position of the manipulators.
increased. In simulation, the system is ideal, but the response However, there are no sensors to measure the forces in the
in hardware is deferent. The Kp and the Kd values are 30 manipulators joints. For this purpose a disturbance observer
and 0.08 respectively. The PD controller shows a good is used in thin experiment. The disturbance observer (DOB)
performance in following the reference signal. Figure 10 is implemented to estimate the forces in the joints without

171505-4848-IJMME-IJENS © October 2017 IJENS

IJENS
 International Journal of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS Vol:17 No:05 152

the need to use sensors. DOB is introduced Ohnishi in [] to 𝐽𝑛 𝜃̈ = (𝑘𝑡𝑛 I − 𝜏𝑑𝑖𝑠 )

replace sensors and to compensate the disturbance as well.
There are some flaws for sensors. The readings of the sensors
contain noises that affect the transparency of the bilateral
controller. Sensors have narrow bandwidths due to filtering
the noises accompanied the readings[14]. DOB is a
compensator to the internal disturbance forces of the motor
and an estimator to the external forces applied on the motor.
The following equations show how DOB is designed and
implemented in the bilateral controller.
Or 𝜏𝑑𝑖𝑠 = (𝑘𝑡𝑛 I − 𝐽𝑛 𝜃̈ ) (24)
Equation 24 is the torque estimated by the disturbance
observer. However, the estimated torque signal has to be
filtered to remove the noise as shown in equation 25. Gdob is
the Cut-Off frequency. The filter applied here is low pass
filter which Gdob is set with high value to let wide
bandwidth of frequencies to pass. Equation 25 is represented
in figure XX.

𝐽 𝐺𝐷𝑂𝐵
Actual inertia 𝜏𝑒𝑥𝑡 = (𝑘𝑡 I − J𝜃)̇ (25)
𝑠+𝐺𝐷𝑂𝐵

𝜃̈ Acceleration of the motor;

𝜏𝑚𝑒𝑐 Mechanical torque;

𝜏𝑙 Load torque

𝜏𝑒𝑥𝑡 External torque applied on the system

𝜏𝑖𝑛𝑡 Internal torque

𝜏𝑐𝑜 Coulomb friction

𝐷𝜃̇ Viscous torque

𝜏𝑑𝑖𝑠 Disturbance torque

𝑘𝑡 Torque constant

I Current flow in the motor

The torques of the motor can be represented in

J𝜃̈ = 𝜏𝑚𝑒𝑐 − 𝜏𝑙 (16)

𝜏𝑙 = 𝜏𝑒𝑥𝑡 + 𝜏𝑖𝑛𝑡 + 𝜏𝑐𝑜 + 𝐷𝜃̇ (17)
𝜏𝑚𝑒𝑐 = 𝑘𝑡 I (18)
Replacing the values of the mechanical torque and load
torque in equation 16 to get equation 19 as follow:
J𝜃̈ = 𝑘𝑡 I − ( 𝜏𝑒𝑥𝑡 + 𝜏𝑖𝑛𝑡 + 𝜏𝑐𝑜 + 𝐷𝜃̇) (19)
The disturbance force can be represented as
𝜏𝑑𝑖𝑠 = −∆𝑘𝑡 I + 𝜏𝑙 + ∆J𝜃̈ (20)
Due to the mechanical system configuration, the center of
mass changes over time. That led to change the inertia J. the
torque constant change as well as in equation 21 & 22
J = 𝐽𝑛 + ∆𝐽 (21)
𝑘𝑡 = 𝑘𝑡𝑛 + ∆𝑘𝑡 (22)
Applying equations 21 & 22 in 19
(𝐽𝑛 + ∆𝐽)𝜃̈ = (𝑘𝑡𝑛 + ∆𝑘𝑡 )I − ( 𝜏𝑒𝑥𝑡 + 𝜏𝑖𝑛𝑡 + 𝜏𝑐𝑜 + 𝐷𝜃̇)
Or (𝐽𝑛 + ∆𝐽)𝜃̈ = (𝑘𝑡𝑛 + ∆𝑘𝑡 )I − 𝜏𝑙 (23)
Reorganize 20 and 23 equation we get
Fig. 11. Disturbance observer block diagram
Matlab Simulink program
The next step is to build the bilateral controller in Simulink.
For this experiment there are two inputs from the encoders
and two outputs to the motors. The Simulink block diagram
in figure 12 represents the common mode and the differential
mode, DOB, the PD, encoders and the motors. The signal
that is read by the encoder is in radians angle. The velocity is
derived from the read position signal using derivative block.
This block produces noise signal, because of dividing small
readings number with sampling time 0.001s which result
unclear data and amplify noise. For that, a low pass filter is
applied after the derivative block.
The micro-box is real time controller that integrated with
matlab software. After hardwiring the all component
together, a few steps are needed. The configurations of
microbox and matlab have to be set before begin the
experiment and build solution.
.

171505-4848-IJMME-IJENS © October 2017 IJENS

IJENS
 International Journal of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS Vol:17 No:05 153

Fig. 12. Bilateral control system for single link

V. RESULTS & DISCUSSION Torque

4
Master
RESULTS
Torque(Nm)

2 Slave

0
As a primary result, the device is not tested yet on real stroke
-2
patients. The current stage is to develop the controller and
-4
test it on a prototype. Device initially is designed to copy the 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

data of walking or exercising (any motion of the legs) from time(sec)

Displacement
one person and implements it in other person (such as a 60
Position(theta)

Master
person who is effected by stroke). Or copy the data from one 40 Slave

leg to the other in case of using the device on the same 20

person to train the effected leg by using the healthy leg. The 0

controller is divided into two systems, the master system and -20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
the slave system. The master system is connected to the time(sec)
trainer. And since the device is not tested on patients yet, we
add weight to the slave manipulator to represent the patient Fig. 13. Bilateral controller response with slave free motion
weight on the slave manipulator.
Torque
10
The experiment is conducted through two stages. The first Master
Torque(Nm)

5 Slave
stage is demonstrated in figure 13 and figure 14. Figure 13
represent swinging the leg while the master manipulator is 0
attached to the trainer and the slave manipulator is left free of
-5
weights (not attached to anything). This step is to test the 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(sec)
tracking of position between the master and slave systems. Displacement
60
The trainer leg is swung twice with maximum angle of 45
Position(theta)

Master
degree from the initial position. The response is recorded and 40 Slave

displayed in figure 13. 20

After that, the same procedures are repeated and adding to -20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
that, an extra weight is attached to the slave manipulator. time(sec)
This step is taken to test the stability of the controller. The
response is recorded and displayed in figure 14. Fig. 14. Bilateral controller response while adding weight to slave
manipulator

171505-4848-IJMME-IJENS © October 2017 IJENS

IJENS
 International Journal of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS Vol:17 No:05 154

The second stage of the experiment is to test the controller workspace

0.18
with faster motion and also while contacting obstacles. The Master P
0.16 Slave P
controller is designed to assist a person on walking or
0.14
exercising activities, so the system must remain stable if a
0.12
person came in contact with a sudden obstacle. Moreover,

position(m)
0.1
the obstacle in the slave manipulator must be reflected to the
0.08
master manipulator. Figure 15 and 16 shows the response
0.06
when the device hit an obstacle on the slave manipulator.
0.04
The graphs are zoomed in to show the details of hitting the
0.02
obstacle on the position tracking. Figures 17 and 18 show the
0
result while the controller is tested with faster pace (to see if
-0.02
the slave manipulator will be able to track the master 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

manipulator). time(sec)

Workspace Fig. 17. Position response of fast manipulator motion

Master P
Slave P
Workspace
1
9
Master f
0.8 Slave f
position(m)

0.6
8.5

Force (m) 0.4

0.2
8
0

-0.2
7.5
-0.4

-0.6
7
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5
-0.8
time(sec)
-1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Fig. 15. Position response when the slave manipulator contact an obstacle Time(sec)

Workspace Fig. 18. Force response of fast manipulator motion

4
Master f

3
Slave f Discussion
The bilateral controller is successfully able to copy the data
2
from one system to the other (from master manipulator to
Force (m)

1 slave manipulator). The bilateral controller is stable and that

0
is shown through the response and the motion of the slave
manipulator. The slave manipulator was able to perform the
-1
same position tracking as the master manipulator. The
-2 position response in figure 13, 14 and 17 show perfect
tracking of the slave manipulator to the master manipulator.
-3

5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10

In these figure there are actually two position signals. One
Time(sec) represents the position of the master manipulator and the
other represents the slave manipulator. Because of the error
Fig. 16. Force response when the slave manipulator contact an obstacle between the signals is less than 0.001, the slave signal cover
the master signal. Both signals can be clearly seen in figure
15 when the slave manipulator contact an obstacle and the
tracking in effected.

The result shows that the bilateral controller is transparent.

That is illustrated in the force response in figures 13, 14 and
18. The force profile response of the slave manipulator is the
same as the master force profile. it means that, the force
produced by the slave manipulator is the same as the force
exerted on the master manipulator. The force profile in figure

171505-4848-IJMME-IJENS © October 2017 IJENS

IJENS
 International Journal of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS Vol:17 No:05 155

16 shows that the obstacle on the slave manipulator is 3077–3080, 2014.

reflected to the master manipulator. It shows that the trainer
on the master system will be able to detect and feel the
obstacle if it happened in the slave manipulator.
VI. CONCLUSION & FUTURE WORK
The result in this paper shows developing rehabilitation
device that is built based on bilateral controller as a human
machine interaction. The concept is to make a stroke patients
move their effected leg like a normal person motion. The
device can be also used by a patient to move the effected leg
by using the healthy leg. The bilateral controller system
consist of PD controller and master and slave teleoperation
system, four channel control architecture, disturbance
observer DOB. The PD controller was designed based on the
requirements of the motor used in the experiment. DOB is
implemented in the experiment to replace the use of force
sensors. The bilateral controller succeeds to do the required
purpose. It copies the position and the force from the master
system (that is manipulated by the trainer) and reproduces it
in the slave system.
FUTURE WORK
For future work is to test the controller with deferent types of
obstacles such as soft obstacles. The result here shows the
interaction of the controller with hard obstacles. It is also
recommended to use better version of micro box with smaller
sampling time than the one used in this experiment.
[7] H. Kawamoto, H. Kadone, T. Sakurai, and Y. Sankai,
“Modification of hemiplegic compensatory gait pattern by
symmetry-based motion controller of HAL,” Proc. Annu. Int.
Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. EMBS, vol. 2015-Novem, pp.
4803–4807, 2015.
[8] Z. Taha, A. P. P. A. Majeed, M. Yashim, W. Paul, A. Ghaffar, and
A. Rahman, “Preliminary Investigation on the Development of a
Lower Extremity Exoskeleton for Gait Rehabilitation : A Clinical
Consideration,” J. Med. Bioeng., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2015.
[9] B. Koopman, E. H. F. Van Asseldonk, and H. Van Der Kooij,
“Estimation of Human Hip and Knee Multi-Joint Dynamics Using
the LOPES Gait Trainer,” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 32, no. 4, pp.
920–932, 2016.
[10] J. Meuleman, E. Asseldonk, G. Oort, H. Rietman, and H. Kooij,
“LOPESII-Design and evaluation of an Admittance controlled gait
raining robot with shadow-leg approach.,” IEEE Trans. neural
Syst. Rehabil. Eng., vol. 24 No.3, no. ISSN 15344320, pp. 352–
363, 2015.
[11] O. Unluhisarcikli, “Human-Robot Interaction Control of
Neurorehabilitation Robots,” ProQuest Diss. Theses, vol.
3527676, p. 181, 2012.
[12] C. Jung, J. Choi, S. Park, and S. Kim, “A Methodology to Control
Walking Speed of Robotic Gait Rehabilitation System using
Feasibility-Guaranteed Trajectories,” pp. 5617–5622, 2015.
[13] S. A. Ali, K. A. M. Annuar, and M. F. Miskon, “Trajectory
planning for exoskeleton robot by using cubic and quintic
polynomial equation,” Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res., vol. 11, no. 13, pp.
7943–7946, 2016.
[14] S. A. Ali, M. F. Miskon, A. Zaki, H. Shukor, M. B. Bahar, and M.
Q. Mohammed, “Review on Application of Haptic in Robotic
Rehabilitation Technology,” Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. ISSN, vol. 12,
no. 12, pp. 973–4562, 2017.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Universiti Teknikal
Malaysia Melaka (UTeM), UTeM Zamalah Scheme and
Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, for supporting this
project.

REFERENCES
[1] D. Mozaffarian, E. J. Benjamin, A. S. Go, D. K. Arnett, M. J.
Blaha, M. Cushman, S. de Ferranti, J.-P. Després, H. J. Fullerton,
V. J. Howard, M. D. Huffman, S. E. Judd, B. M. Kissela, D. T.
Lackland, J. H. Lichtman, L. D. Lisabeth, S. Liu, R. H. Mackey,
D. B. Matchar, D. K. McGuire, E. R. Mohler, C. S. Moy, P.
Muntner, M. E. Mussolino, K. Nasir, R. W. Neumar, G. Nichol, L.
Palaniappan, D. K. Pandey, M. J. Reeves, C. J. Rodriguez, P. D.
Sorlie, J. Stein, A. Towfighi, T. N. Turan, S. S. Virani, J. Z.
Willey, D. Woo, R. W. Yeh, and M. B. Turner, “Heart Disease
and Stroke Statistics—2015 Update,” Circulation, 2014.
[2] I. Díaz, J. J. J. Gil, and E. Sánchez, “Lower-Limb Robotic
Rehabilitation: Literature Review and Challenges,” J. Robot., vol.
2011, no. i, pp. 1–11, 2011.
[3] J. Ghan and H. Kazerooni, “System identification for the Berkeley
Lower Extremity Exoskeleton (BLEEX),” Proc. - IEEE Int. Conf.
Robot. Autom., vol. 2006, no. November 2014, pp. 3477–3484,
2006.
[4] K. H. Low, X. L. X. Liu, and H. Y. H. Yu, “Development of NTU
wearable exoskeleton system for assistive technologies,” IEEE Int.
Conf. Mechatronics Autom. 2005, vol. 2, no. July, pp. 1099–1106,
2005.
[5] S. K. Banala, S. K. Agrawal, and J. P. Scholz, “Active Leg
Exoskeleton (ALEX) for gait rehabilitation of motor-impaired
patients,” 2007 IEEE 10th Int. Conf. Rehabil. Robot. ICORR’07,
vol. 00, no. c, pp. 401–407, 2007.
[6] H. Kawamoto, H. Kandone, T. Sakurai, R. Ariyasu, Y. Ueno, K.
Eguchi, and Y. Sankai, “Development of an assist controller with
robot suit HAL for hemiplegic patients using motion data on the
unaffected side,” Conf. Proc. ... Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med.
Biol. Soc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. Annu. Conf., vol. 2014, pp.

171505-4848-IJMME-IJENS © October 2017 IJENS

IJENS