Minimising the User’s Effort during Wheelchair Propulsion using an
Optimal Control Problem
Ouazna Oukacha
a
, Chouki Sentouh
b
and Philippe Pudlo
c
University Polytechnique Hauts-de-France, CNRS, UMR 8201-LAMIH, F-59313 Valenciennes, France
Keywords:
Power-assist Wheelchair Propulsion, Optimal Control, Biomechanical, Metabolic Energy Cost, Efficiency,
Optimal Strategy.
Abstract:
This paper proposes a study of the optimal control problem with state constraint, using two types of a power-
assist wheelchair propulsion. The cost function is given by the metabolic function, which represented by a
compromise between the work exerted by the joints muscles (mechanical effect) and an efficiency function
that converts chemical into mechanical energy (biomechanical effect). The dynamic wheelchair is given by a
simple model, which connects the push force to the wheelchair speed. An upper bound constraint is considered
in order to limit the energy consumed by the motor. This study used an approach that calls the Pontryagin’s
maximum principle, the optimal solution varies with the parameters of the problem. Finally, a numerical
comparison is enabled using two types of assistance: constant and proportional. This numerical comparison
is based on the framework of the optimal control theory with two different costs. The first cost is given by the
integral of the squared user’s force and the second by the integral of the metabolic function. This Numerical
results show that the user provides less effort with metabolic cost than with the energy user’s force.
1 INTRODUCTION
In the long term, the manual wheelchair user can
cause upper limb pain and degeneration. Most of the
users have difficulty to avoid an obstacle or change
direction. In order to decrease the human suffer-
ing caused by this activity, many working tasks are
performed manual wheelchair level (motor, frame
structure, etc.) (Pezzuti et al., 2006). In addition,
many researches are made in biomechanical (Hori-
uchi et al., 2014) and (Luhtanen et al., 1987). This pa-
per proposes a human-machine interaction and within
this framework, a power assist manual wheelchair
propulsion is achieved using an optimal control prob-
lem (Cooper et al., 2002) and (Cuerva et al., 2016).
Usually, the model of optimal control problem in-
spired from (Oukacha and Boizot, 2020), altering the
energy of the motor vehicle by the effort required for
the user in a manual wheelchair propulsion. The mo-
tor energy takes into account as an upper bound con-
straint. It is then a optimal control problem with state
constraint.
a
https://orcid.org/00000-003-3669-8124
b
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1548-9665
c
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0339-7336
In order to reduce these efforts, a metabolic cost
function, also called ”biomechanical metabolic” is
used. This metabolic function is the quantity of en-
ergy consumed by a person during a muscular activ-
ity (Horiuchi et al., 2014). Generally, this function
measured the amount of oxygen used by the muscles.
During the muscle contraction, the cells use the ATP
as an energy source, which is produced by hydroly-
sis of ATP to ADP (chimical energy). In the liter-
ature, the metabolic cost function can be expressed
mathematically, thanks to the tests made by differ-
ent scientists and it has several forms. In reference
to (Ardigo et al., 2005) and (Horiuchi et al., 2014),
this function could be formulated as a second degree
equation, which depend only of the linear speed of the
wheelchair. As stated above, this metabolic function
could be designated as the energy expended during
a manual wheelchair propulsion. This function mea-
sures the mean of the Oxygen uptake and the carbon
dioxide output (Yang et al., 2009). Since the effort
provides by a person in a manual wheelchair propul-
sion, depends on his/her upper limb ability, this func-
tion may also be presented by all the joint moments
of the shoulder, elbow and wrist (Rozendaal et al.,
2003). Finally, the metabolic function can be gen-
erated under the efficiency function.
Oukacha, O., Sentouh, C. and Pudlo, P.
Minimising the User’s Effort during Wheelchair Propulsion using an Optimal Control Problem.
DOI: 10.5220/0009833101590166
In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics (ICINCO 2020), pages 159-166
ISBN: 978-989-758-442-8
Copyright
c
 2020 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
159

In the works cited above, the metabolic function is
achieved through the analysis of experimental data. In
this article, the metabolic function value is calculated
by solving an optimal control problem. Moreover,
we interested more specifically in this latter function.
Thus, the metabolic function is given by a compro-
mise between the work of the push force and effi-
ciency function, which is only related to the linear
speed of the wheelchair (Cooper, 1990b). There are
several different types of the efficiency: gross, net,
true, etc. as described in (Hintzy et al., 2002) and
(Luhtanen et al., 1987). In this work, we will fo-
cus on the gross efficiency, contrary of what is done
in (Cooper, 1990a), where it studied an optimal con-
trol problem using the net efficiency that appears in
the dynamical model. The advantage of using the
gross efficiency is that it allows to take into account
the energy expended at rest.
In this paper, we tackle an optimal control prob-
lem with two approaches: an analytical study and a
numerical resolution. First, a general study is per-
formed with the help of Pontryagin’s Maximum Prin-
ciple (PMP) (Pontryagin et al., 1962). The PMP is
a very effective approach, where these theoretical re-
sults obtained that fits perfectly with the experimental
tests. For example, the article (Berret et al., 2008)
deals an optimal control problem in biomechanical,
where the authors have shown that the optimal solu-
tion obtained by the PMP similar to the experimen-
tal results. In the second step, a numerical method
is used to provide a solution to a complex optimal
control problem. The numerical simulations uses real
data, for example, the efficiency function model is re-
trieved in (Cooper et al., 2002). This function for-
mulated through experimental tests and the curve ef-
ficiency profile according to (Ardigo et al., 2005).
In addition, a comparison is made between the op-
timal control problem given in (Cuerva et al., 2016)
and a new problem which is will be presented. In the
previous paper, a comparison of three different types
of power-assist wheelchair propulsion is made using
an optimal control problem.
The section 2 is devoted to a more detailed de-
scription of the optimal control problem, the model
dynamic wheelchair and the running cost. Section 3
is dedicated to the presentation of the approach solv-
ing the optimal control problem. In the section 4,
we present the numerical results of each power-assist
wheelchair propulsion. The sections 5 discusses the
obtained results. Finally, the section 6 presents the
conclusion and perspectives of this study.
2 MODEL OF THE OPTIMAL
CONTROL PROBLEM
In this optimal control problem with state constraint,
we will focus particularly on the metabolic cost func-
tion which is generalized by an efficiency function.
The dynamic wheelchair-user system is given by the
Netwon’s second law of motion.
2.1 Dynamic Wheelchair Propulsion
The equations of the motion wheelchair-user model
are determined by a first order dynamic system. As-
sume that air resistance is negligible and the rolling
resistance of the wheelchair-user system propelled at
linear speed in a straight line. Following the Fig-
ure 1, the movement of a person assisted by a manual
wheelchair is given:
¨x =
1
M

F
p
+ F
m
− sign(˙x)F
r
−C ˙x

(1)
where, x, ˙x, ¨x are the longitudinal position, the lin-
ear velocity, the linear acceleration of wheelchair re-
spectively, F
p
is the user’s force, F
m
is the motor
force, F
r
is the rolling resistance force, C is the vis-
cous damping coefficient and M is the total mass
(user + wheelchair). The motor force is proportional
to the user’s force, since it acts of a power-assist
wheelchair. The control strategy is given by the F
p
and F
m
= F
m
(F
p
).
F
p
F
m
F
r
C
x
Figure 1: Dynamic Model of the motion wheelchair-user.
2.2 Metabolic Cost Function
The energy consumption of the body can be de-
fined by a metabolic function during the propulsion
wheelchair. The metabolic function to minimize, rep-
resenting as the ratio between the power of push
and biomechanical efficiency (Oukacha and Boizot,
2020):
J =
P
ρ
(2)
ICINCO 2020 - 17th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics
160

The power associated to the work W is:
P =
dW
dt
= F
p
˙x
The work performed during a muscular activity is not
constant, because the pace and the capacity of the per-
son change with time. The wrist motion in handrim
wheelchair propulsion can generate in two stages: the
concentric and eccentric muscle contractions, which
produced by the positive and negative work respec-
tively (Williams, 1985). Therefore, the work of the
push can be described as a non-differentiable func-
tion that is similar to the absolute work. The absolute
work of the propulsion force done by a muscle during
a period t
0
to T
f
is:
W =
T
f
Z
t
0
|F
p
˙x| dt
The cost function which allows to measure the quan-
tity consumed to push the wheelchair from a starting
position at time zero to some final position at final
time T
f
, is given by:
J =
T
f
Z
0
|F
p
˙x|
ρ( ˙x)
dt (3)
According to (Cooper, 1990b), the biomechanical ef-
ficiency can be formulated by the second equation,
which depends of the linear wheelchair velocity. The
curve profile obtained from this equation is illustrated
in Figure 2:
ρ( ˙x) =
1
100

− 0.55 ˙x
2
+ 7.02 ˙x + 3.15

2 4 6 8
⋁
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
ρ(
⋁
)
Figure 2: Efficiency function model.
This Efficiency is calculated from the ratio between
the power output and the power of the measured oxy-
gen consumption.
2.3 Problem Statement
An optimal control problem is formulated by the dy-
namic system similar to the one presented in (Cuerva
et al., 2016). The cost function is given by the
metabolic cost function presented above. Moreover,
a control bound and a fixed final time are considered
in order to satisfy the upper and lower bounds of the
user’s force and the duration of the motion. The prob-
lem is given by the following equations:



















































Minimise J =
T
f
R
0
|F
p
v|
ρ(v)
dt
Subject to
˙x = v;
˙v =
1
M

F
p
+ F
m
− F
r
sign(v) −C v

˙
E = |F
m
v|
E ≤ W
1
| ˙v| ≤ 3
x(0) = 0
v(0) = 0
!
,
x(T
f
) = 10
v(T
f
) = 0
!
Lb ≤ F
p
≤ U b
T
f
> 0 : f ixed
(4)
Where W
1
=
3
4
W is the energy consumed by the mo-
tor, when this maximum value (W ) is calculated by
solving the optimisation problem (4), without user in-
teraction (F
m
= 0). Thus W = 219.5J.
A boundary constraint (| ˙v ≤ 3|) is made regarding to
the acceleration ant the deceleration to ensure user’s
comfort (Karmarkar et al., 2008).
Following (Berret et al., 2008), the problem (4)
admits at least one solution. According to (Oukacha
and Boizot, 2020), the optimal control problem (4)
is independent of the position x, the trajectories in-
cluding an arc with v < 0 is not an optimal trajec-
tory. Thus, the speed is positive or null (v ≥ 0) during
wheelchair propulsion, as suggested in (Cuerva et al.,
2016).
The optimal control problem (4) could be defined in
free final time. In this case, the time is an unknown
variable of this problem, we then have an additional
constraint.
3 PONTRYAGIN’S MAXIMUM
PRINCIPLE
A study is based on the Pontryagin’s Maximum Prin-
ciple (PMP) (Pontryagin et al., 1962), which gives a
necessary optimality condition of the optimal control
problem. Let us introduce λ = (λ
1
,λ
2
,λ
3
) the adjoint
vector of the state vector X = (x,v,E) and the Hamil-
tonian function is defined by:
Minimising the User’s Effort during Wheelchair Propulsion using an Optimal Control Problem
161

H(X, λ,F
p
) = −
|F
p
|v
ρ(v)
+ λ
3
|F
m
(F
p
)|v + µ(E −W
1
)
+λ
1
v + λ
2
1
M

F
p
+ F
m
(F
p
) − F
r
−C v

Let (X
∗
,F
∗
p
) be an optimal solution, then the PMP as-
serts the existence of an absolutely continuous func-
tion λ: [0,T
f
] → ℜ
3
and µ is the Lagrange multiplier
of the constraint. The necessary optimality conditions
are as follows:
1. There exists t → µ(t) ≥ 0, such that the adjoint
vectors satisfies:











˙
λ
1
= −
∂H(X ,λ,F
p
)
∂x
= 0
˙
λ
2
= −
∂H(X ,λ,F
p
)
∂v
=
|F
p
|
ρ(v)
−
|F
p
|ρ
0
(v)v
ρ(v)
2
− λ
1
+
λ
2
C
M
− λ
3
|F
m
(F
p
)|
˙
λ
3
= −
∂H(X ,λ,F
p
)
∂E
= −µ
where ρ
0
(v) =
∂ρ(v)
∂v
2. The mapping t → µ(t) is continuous along the
boundary arc and verifies:
µ(t)(E(t) −W
1
) = 0, ∀t ∈ [0,T
f
]
3. H(X,λ,F
p
) is constant, since the optimal control
problem (4) is autonomous. Therefore, the op-
timal control maximizes almost everywhere the
Hamiltonian:
H = max
F
p
H(X, λ,F
p
)
= λ
1
v −
λ
2
M
(F
r
+Cv) + µ(E −W
1
) + max
F
p
{
φ(t)
}
4. If the final time is free, then the Hamiltonian
H(X, λ,F
p
) = 0 along the trajectory.
5. The candidate control strategy is given by:
F
p
= argmax
Ub≤F
p
≤Lb
{
φ(t)
}
=



Ub if φ(t) > 0 (bang)
F
p
∈]Lb,Ub[ if φ(t) = 0 (singular)
Lb if φ(t) < 0 (bang)
Where φ(t) =
−|F
p
|v
ρ(v)
+ λ
3
|F
m
|v +
λ
2
M

F
p
+ F
m

, is
called the switching function.
The optimal control strategy vanishes in terms the
F
m
= F
m
(F
p
). In the section that follows, both assis-
tance will be present, where her solution varies be-
tween: bang-bang, inactivated and singular arc. An
extremal is a solution λ of the above equations. A
portion of the trajectory is a bang type, when the con-
trol variable is equal to its maximum, or its minimum.
A trajectory with inactivation is defined when the
2
4
6
8
t
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.5
1.0
1.5
F
p
HtL
Bang
Singular arc
Inactivation
Bang
Figure 3: Control strategy example with |F
p
| ≤ 1.
control variable is null over a time interval. How-
ever, a singular arc is a portion of the trajectory along
which the control does not achieved its upper (con-
stant or non constant arc), as in Figure 3.
The problem solving is based on the trape-
zoidal direct collocation method developing in Mat-
lab (Betts, 2010).
4 NUMERICAL RESULTS
This part is devoted to present the results of numer-
ical simulation studies, using the constant and pro-
portional assistance. For all simulations, the data are
retrieved from the article (Cuerva et al., 2016), their
values are: M = 110kg, F
r
= 8.9N, C = 4.6N s/m.
4.1 Constant Assistance
The constant assistance is defined by a simple gain
(K
1
), which represents the assistance force provided
by the motor. The value of this gain is connected to
the user’s force (F
p
), with respect to a threshold. An
approximation of the push force is given by a numer-
ical approach of the threshold. This push force (F
p
) is
expressed as a hyperbolic tangent function:
F
m
(F
p
) = K1 tanh(F
p
) (5)
The energy used by the motor is:
E(F
m
,v) =
T
f
Z
0
|F
m
v| dt =
T
f
Z
0
K
1
|tanh(F
p
)| v dt (6)
We have | tanh(F
p
)| ≤ 1, the equation (6) become:
E(F
m
,v) ≤
T
f
R
0
K
1
v dt = K
1
T
f
R
0
dx
dt
dt = K
1
T
f
R
0
dx
Therefore, E(F
m
,v) ≤ K
1
x(T
f
) and we have
E(F
m
,v) ≤ W
1
. In extreme case, the motor con-
sumes E(F
m
,v) = W
1
.
Consequently:
E(F
m
,v) = W
1
≤ K
1
x(T
f
) =⇒ K
1
≥
W
1
x(T
f
)
= 16.46.
ICINCO 2020 - 17th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics
162

In this case, the switching function φ(t) is:
φ(t) =

−|F
p
|
ρ(v)
+ K
1
λ
3
|tanh(F
p
)|

v
+
λ
2
M

F
p
+ K
1
tanh(F
p
)

They noted that the switching function has a quite
complex expression. Thus, an analytical study the
sign of this function is not easy. A numerical method
is used to solve the optimal control problem (4). Fig-
ures 4 shows some optimal solutions, which varied
according to the upper bound controls included.
Figure 4: Optimal trajectories with Lb ≥ F
p
≤ Ub
i
,i =
1,..,4 and Ub1 > Ub2 > U b3 > U b4.
Figure 5: Optimal control strategies with Lb ≥ F
p
≤
Ub
i
,i = 1,..,4 and Ub1 > Ub2 > U b3 > U b4.
In this case, the authors of the work (Cuerva
et al., 2016) solved the optimal control problem with
tanh(F
p
) ≈ sign(F
p
), since the latter problem does
not converge. In this order, a comparison is estab-
lished with the optimal control problem (4) and with
the same condition (cf. Figure 6). Therefore, the mo-
tor force and motor energy are becoming:
F
m
(F
p
) = K1 sign(F
p
) (7)
E(F
m
,v) ≈
T
f
Z
0
K
1
v dt (8)
The energy consumed by the motor depends only on
the wheelchair speed. The gain value K
1
is obtained
from the equation (8), as follows:
E(F
m
,v) ≈
T
f
Z
0
K
1
v dt ≤
3
4
W =⇒ K
1
T
f
Z
0
dx ≤
3
4
W
Thus, K
1
≤
3 W
4 x(T
f
)
= 16.46. The switching function
φ(t) become:
φ(t) =
−|F
p
|v
ρ(v)
+
λ
2
M

F
p
+ K
1
sign(F
p
)

The last expression of the φ(t) of the form:
φ(t) = −K|F
p
| + MF
p
∓ N
where K =
v
ρ(v)
, M =
λ
2
M
and N =
λ
2
M
K
1
.
As the before case, an analytical study of this switch-
ing function is not simple, since the value of N varies
as a function of time.
Figure 6: Comparison between the problem (Cuerva et al.,
2016) (Ref) and problem (4) (New) with tanh(F
p
) ≈
sign(F
p
) for the constant assistance.
In this case, the goal is to compare the problem posed
in (4) without and with tanh(F
p
) ≈ sign(F
p
). For the
same initial conditions, the optimal solutions are il-
lustrated by the Figures 6.
4.2 Proportional Assistance
This kind of assistance is inspired from the work
of (Cooper et al., 2002), where the motor force (F
m
)
Minimising the User’s Effort during Wheelchair Propulsion using an Optimal Control Problem
163

Figure 7: Comparison between the problem (4) without and
with tanh(F
p
) ≈ sign(F
p
) for the constant assistance.
is given by the use’s force (F
p
) multiplied by a gain
(K
2
) (cf. equation (9)):
F
m
(F
p
) = K
2
F
p
(9)
The energy generated by the motor during the accel-
eration and deceleration phases is given by:
E(F
m
,v) =
T
f
Z
0
|F
m
v| dt
=
T
f
Z
0
K
2
K
2
+ 1

M| ˙v| + sign(v)F
r
+C v

v dt
The gain value K
2
is calculated with the same prin-
ciple adapted to the previous assistance study, then
K
2
= 1.87. In the case of the proportional assistance,
the switching function φ(t) is given by:
φ(t) = −

v
ρ(v)
− K
2
λ
3
v

|F
p
| +
λ
2
M
(1 + K
2
)F
p
The last function is of the form:
φ(t) = −G(t)|F
p
(t)| + L(t)F
p
where G =
v
ρ(v)
− K
2
λ
3
v and L =
λ
2
M
(1 + K
2
).
The maximisation condition of the control (Oukacha
and Boizot, 2020):
F
p
= argmax
Ub≤F
p
≤Lb
{
φ(t)
}
=









Ub if L > G (bang)
F
p
∈ [0,Ub] if L = G (singular)
0 if − G < L < G (inactive)
F
p
∈ [Lb,0] if L = −G ( singular)
Lb if L < −G (bang)
Figure 8: Comparison between the problem (Cuerva et al.,
2016) and problem (4) for the proportional assistance.
Cost Function Value
Table 1 summarizes the results of the cost function
for the different strategies of the control, with the two
assistances.
Table 1: Comparison betwen the cost functions.
Cost Constant assist. Proportional assist.
J
Energy
4201.06 2115.98
J
Metabolic
1208.84 —
J
Sign
Metabolic
1137.22 727.48
J
UB1
Metabolic
775.47 —
J
UB2
Metabolic
984.51 —
J
UB3
Metabolic
1019.22 —
J
UB4
Metabolic
1208.84 —
Where J
Energy
and J
Sign
Metabolic
are the costs correspond-
ing to (Cuerva et al., 2016) and the optimal control
problem (4) with tanh(F
p
) ≈ sign(F
p
), for each one
of these two assistance (Figures 6 and 8 respectively).
J
Metabolic
, J
Ub1
Metabolic
, J
Ub2
Metabolic
, J
Ub3
Metabolic
and J
Ub4
Metabolic
are the costs to the optimal strategies of the prob-
lem (4), for the constant assistance. These costs as-
sociated to Figures 7 and 4 (or Figure 5) respectively.
One notes that the both cost functions J
Metabolic
and
J
Ub4
Metabolic
represented the same control strategy.
5 DISCUSSION
The Figures 4, 6, 7 and 8 present the optimal trajec-
tories: position, velocities, user’s force and the motor
force in this order.
The Figure 4 represents the solving of the op-
timal control problem (4), with the constant assis-
tance. The optimal strategy (Figure 5) varies to the
ICINCO 2020 - 17th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics
164

upper bound of the user’s force. All control strate-
gies started with the value of the upper bound, then its
are gradually decreasing, except for the green curve
(c.f. Figure 5 with Ub2) which pushes to the limit
and then decreased. The positions and the velocities
have a very similar profile. The peaks of user’s force
occur almost at the same time. When the higher the
applied force a small cost function value, as observed
in Table 1. For these upper bounds of the control ar-
ranged in this sequence: Ub1 > Ub2 > Ub3 > Ub4,
these costs functions are classified in the inverse or-
der: J
Ub1
Metabolic
< J
Ub2
Metabolic
< J
Ub3
Metabolic
< J
Ub4
Metabolic
.
Figures 6 and 8 illustrate a comparison between
the problem described in (Cuerva et al., 2016) and the
optimal control problem posed in (4). The optimal so-
lution of each problem is indicated by the indices En-
ergy and Metabolic respectively. For each assistance
(constant and proportional), the both Figures 6 and 8,
generated a control strategy, which starts and ends at
the same values. In other words, we presume that the
users have the same maximum force in the handrim
wheelchair propulsion. For the constant assistance,
the position trajectories are identical, but the veloc-
ity profile is just similar at the beginning and end and
not achieving the maximum value. The middle part
corresponds more or less to singular arc, which is not
constant over time (Figure 5). The optimal strategy is
composed of bang-bang and singular arc. The results
also noted that the two peaks of user’s force happen-
ing at the same time, as shown in the graph of the
motor force. Because, the switching time of the both
control are produced simultaneously. In the propor-
tional assistance, the position trajectories are almost
identical. In addition, the velocity profiles are identi-
cal at the beginning and the end. Thus, a part of the
trajectory, which corresponds to the singular arc of
the control, is composed of: bang-bang, inactivation,
singular arc. In the both assistance, the cost function
value given by the optimal control problem (4) is less
than that the one achieved by (Cuerva et al., 2016)
with three methods (c.f. Table 1). This can be ex-
plained by the presence of a period where the user’
force is zero (inactivation period in the proportional
assistance) or almost zero (singular arc in the con-
stant assistance) on the time interval. Minimising a
function of this type implies the presence of inacti-
vation period. This phenomena takes place because
the work of both agonistic and antagonistic muscles
acting on a joint during rapid motion (Berret et al.,
2008), which produced by the hydrolysis of ATP to
ADP. During the inactivation period, the user’s force
applied at each joint is null. Therefore, the cost func-
tion is also equal to zero during this inactivation pe-
riod.
Figure 7 represent a comparison for optimal
control problem (4), without and with tanh(F
p
) =
sign(F
p
). As we can see, all the curves overlaid
in each case, which is confirmed by the cost func-
tions, since the two strategies expend almost the same
amount of energy (Table 1).
6 CONCLUSION
This paper addresses an optimal control problem with
minimal user effort during the propulsion wheelchair.
The optimal control problem with state constraint is
formulated using a power assisted wheelchair propul-
sion. The assistance represented a human-machine
interaction, where a cooperation between the motor
force and the user’s force is enabled. Both assistance
are described: constant and proportional. The opti-
mal control problem with state constraint processed
by the Pontryagin’s Maximum Principle and then a
numerical resolution is achieved when this problem is
complex. The cost function is given by the metabolic
function, which is a compromise between the abso-
lute work of the user’s force and his/her performance
in the wheelchair. Finally, a comparison is established
between two costs functions using this optimal con-
trol problem.
The numerical simulations show that the proposed
metabolic cost function reduces the physical effort in
comparison with the energy of user’s force. All strate-
gies obtained by solving the optimal control prob-
lem (4) costs less that the other three approaches pre-
sented in (Cuerva et al., 2016), for each assistance.
The non-differentiable of this function allows to pro-
duce a period when the user’s force is null.
Contrary to (Oukacha and Boizot, 2020), this
work also includes singular arcs non-constants and
the control strategy vanishes in the terms of the motor
force model, which is proportional to the user’s force
applied on the handrim wheelchair propulsion.
The work is realized in QBA framework
project (Bentaleb et al., 2019). This paper presented
initial simulation results of the biomechanical part.
The future work is to develop this model in order to
realize the experimental part in the PSCHITT-PMR
platform.
REFERENCES
Ardigo, L. P., Goosey-Tolfrey, V. L., and Minetti, A. E.
(2005). Biomechanics and energetics of basketball
wheelchairs evolution. International journal of sports
medicine, 26(5):388–396.
Minimising the User’s Effort during Wheelchair Propulsion using an Optimal Control Problem
165

Bentaleb, T., Nguyen, V. T., Sentouh, C., Conreur, G.,
Poulain, T., and Pudlo, P. (2019). A real-time multi-
objective predictive control strategy for wheelchair er-
gometer platform. In 2019 IEEE International Con-
ference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC).
Berret, B., Darlot, C., Jean, F., Pozzo, T., Papaxanthis, C.,
and Gauthie, J. P. (2008). The inactivation principle:
Mathematical solutions minimizing the absolute work
and biological implications for the planning of arm
movements. Public Library of Science, 4(10).
Betts, J. T. (2010). Practical methods for optimal control
and estimation using nonlinear programming, vol-
ume 19. SIAM.
Cooper, R. A., , Corfman, T. A., Fitzgerald, S. G., Boninger,
M. L., Spaeth, D. M., Ammer, W., and Arva, J.
(2002). Performance assessment of a pushrim-
activated power-assisted wheelchair control system.
IEEE transactions on control systems technology,
10(1):121–126.
Cooper, R. A. (1990a). A force/energy optimization model
for wheelchair athletics. IEEE Transactions on Sys-
tems, Man, and Cybernetics, 20(2):444–449.
Cooper, R. A. (1990b). A systems approach to the modeling
of racing wheelchair propulsion. Journal of Rehabili-
tation Research and Development, 27(2):151–162.
Cuerva, V. I., Ackermann, M., and Leonardi, F. (2016). A
comparison of different assistance strategies in power
assisted wheelchairs using an optimal control formu-
lation. In Proceedings of the Sixth IASTED Interna-
tional Conference Modeling, Simulation and Identifi-
cation (MSI 2016).
Hintzy, F., Tordi, N., and Perrey, S. (2002). Muscular effi-
ciency during arm cranking and wheelchair exercise: a
comparison. International journal of sports medicine,
23(06):408–414.
Horiuchi, M., Muraki, S., Horiuchi, Y., Inada, N., and Abe,
D. (2014). Energy cost of pushing a wheelchair on
various gradients in young men. International Journal
of Industrial Ergonomics, 44(3):442–447.
Karmarkar, A., Cooper, R. A., Liu, H. Y., Connor, S.,
and Puhlman, J. (2008). Evaluation of pushrim-
activated power-assisted wheelchairs using ansi/resna
standards. Archives of physical medicine and rehabil-
itation, 89(6):1191–1198.
Luhtanen, P., Rahkila, P., Rusko, H., and Viitasalo, J. T.
(1987). Mechanical work and efficiency in ergometer
bicycling at aerobic and anaerobic thresholds. Acta
physiologica scandinavica, 131(3):331–337.
Oukacha, O. and Boizot, N. (2020). Consumption minimi-
sation for an academic vehicle. Accepted for publica-
tion in the Optimal control applications and methods
(October 2016 - march 2020), <hal-01384651>.
Pezzuti, E., Pvalentini, P., and Vita, L. (2006). Design and
optimization of a wheelchair for basketball using cad.
In XVIII Congresso INGEGRAF.
Pontryagin, L. S., Boltyanskii, V. G., Gamkrelidze, R. V.,
and Mishchenko, E. F. (1962). The Mathematical The-
ory of Optimal Processes. John Wiley and Sons, New
York-London-Sydney.
Rozendaal, L. A., Veeger, H. E. J., and van der Woude,
L. H. V. (2003). The push force pattern in manual
wheelchair propulsion as a balance between cost and
effect. Journal of Biomechanics, 36(2):239–247.
Williams, K. R. (1985). The relationship between mechani-
cal and physiological energy estimates. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise, 17(3):317–325.
Yang, Y. S., Koontz, A., Triolo, R. J., Cooper, R. A., and
Boninger, M. L. (2009). Biomechanical analysis of
functional electrical stimulation on trunk musculature
during wheelchair propulsion. Neurorehabilitation
and Neural Repair, 23(7):717–725.
ICINCO 2020 - 17th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics
166