4.4 Article

Novel active magnetorheological knee prosthesis presents low energy consumption during ground walking

Journal

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1045389X20983923

Keywords

Energy consumption; active knee prosthesis; magnetorheological fluid; MR clutch; MR brake

Funding

  1. FAPES (Fundacxao de Amparo a Pesquisa e Inovacxao do Espirito Santo) [83276262, TO 207/2018]
  2. Coordenacxao de Aperfeicxoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior-Brazil (CAPES) [001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study analyzed the energy consumption of an active magnetorheological knee actuator designed for transfemoral prostheses. It found that using the MR brake in the swing phase was more energetically efficient than using the motor-reducer. The AMRK expended 16.3 J during a gait cycle, which was 1.6 times less than the energy expenditure of the CAKP, while the CSAKP required just 6.0 J.
This study analyses the energy consumption of an active magnetorheological knee (AMRK) actuator that was designed for transfemoral prostheses. The system was developed as an operational motor unit (MU), which consists of an EC motor, a harmonic drive and a magnetorheological (MR) clutch, that operates in parallel with an MR brake. The dynamic models of the MR brake and MU were used to simulate the system's energetic expenditure during over-ground walking under three different working conditions: using the complete AMRK; using just its motor-reducer, to operate as a common active knee prosthesis (CAKP), and using just the MR brake, to operate as a common semi-active knee prosthesis (CSAKP). The results are used to compare the MR devices power consumptions with that of the motor-reducer. As previously hypothesized, to use the MR brake in the swing phase is more energetically efficient than using the motor-reducer to drive the joint. Even if using the motor-reducer in regenerative braking mode during the stance phase, the differences in power consumption among the systems are remarkable. The AMRK expended 16.3 J during a gait cycle, which was 1.6 times less than the energy expenditure of the CAKP (26.6 J), whereas the CSAKP required just 6.0 J.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available