49
5V
Microcontroller (Arduino)
Wireless Transmitter (Bluetooth) Ground
ADC 1 kΩ
V1 V2
1 kΩ V1
t
t V2
Smartphone
Wired connection Wireless connection 2 1
Heel
Metatarsal
Heel sensor Metatarsal
sensor
(b)
Smart Insole
Heel sensor Metatarsal sensor
V1 V2
Ground Ground
1 2
(a)
Battery
Bluetooth Arduino +
ADC To heel sensor To metatarsal
sensor
(c)
Insole
Figure 3.3: Schematic layout of the overall system. (a) Placement of sensors.
(b) Electronic circuitry. (c) Circuit board.
value of reference resistor is used to accommodate a larger sensing range, as too low in the resistance value might cause short circuit (under no load condition)) to form a voltage divider so that the voltage changes can be measured at the metatarsal and heel regions. Figure 3.3 (b) shows the output voltage of each sensor is first sent to the analog-to-digital converter (ADC) module. Next, the digital signals are processed by the microcontroller module (Arduino Nano ATmega328) and, finally, the processed signals are sent to a smartphone through a Bluetooth module (HC-05). All the components in the electronic circuitry are shown in Figure 3.3 (c).
50
series (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) was used for both characterizations. The output of the sensor was measured using the NI ELVIS Board II+ (National Instrument, United States) with a sampling rate of 3.5 Hz. The data obtained were analysed using the NI LabVIEW.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Resistance change (per unit)
Time (s)
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
0 100 200 300 400 500
Resistance change (per unit)
Time (s)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Resistance change (per unit)
Strain (%) Loading
Unloading
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Resistance change (per unit)
Pressure (kPa)
Loading Unloading
(b)
(c) (d)
(a)
(e) (f)
Time (s) Time (s)
Normal Pressure Axial Strain
Loading Unloading
Loading Unloading
Normal Pressure (kPa) Axial Strain (%)
ΔR/R0
Normal Pressure Axial Strain
ΔR/R0
ΔR/R0 ΔR/R0
1 cm 1 cm
Figure 3.4: Experimental setups for (a) normal pressure and (b) axial strain of sensor. Sensor’s output characteristics for (c) normal pressure and (d) axial strain. The mechanical durability characterization of sensor under 100 continuous working cycles for (e) normal pressure and (f) axial strain.
51 Sensor Characterization
The sensor was tested with high pressing load of 0 to 400 kPa (equivalent to the human weight of 50 kg). The motorized platform was translated with a linear speed of 0.2 mm/s. Figure 3.4 (c) shows the resistance of the sensor behaves non-linearly when a force is applied/released in the normal direction, as can be anticipated from equation (3.5). The dominant factor that contributes to the change of resistance in the normal direction is mainly attributed by the reduction of the cross-sectional area of the spiral microchannel.
For strain test, the sensor was stretched up to 30% strain (10.5 mm) with a linear speed of 4.2 mm/s. The outputs in Figure 3.4 (d), on the other hand, shows linearity in strain sensing (Park et al., 2012). Referring to Figure 3.4 (c) and (d), the mechanical loading and unloading processes pose hysteresis with the percentages of 5.01%, and 4.24% for normal pressure and axial strain sensing, respectively. The hysteresis is mainly due to the properties of the polymer material (Park et al., 2012). It is worth noting that the hysteresis is within sensing tolerance and quite similar to the reported work in (Mengüç et al., 2014).
The robustness of the stretchable resistive-based sensor was characterized by applying/releasing a pressure of 400 kPa, and strain of 30%, for 100 cycles for both cases, under a 0.2 Hz. As can be seen from Figure 3.4 (e) and (f), there is no obvious degradation, indicating good sensor’s stability and durability.
52 Gait Monitoring of Plantar Region
Then, the characterized sensors were placed at the front and back positions of a shoe insole to detect pressure changes at the metatarsal and heel regions, respectively. A subject was instructed to wear the shoe insole on his left foot and walk on a treadmill. The speed of the treadmill was controlled such that the walking speed of the subject was maintained at a constant speed of 2 km/h with zero inclination angle. With the same parametric settings, the speed of the treadmill was then increased to 5 km/h to monitor the subject’s running pattern. Figure 3.5 (a) and (b) depict the respective output signals of the sensors for the walking and running motions. The two output responses were all
(c) (d)
Walking
Stance Phase
= 1.07 s (60%)
Swing Phase
= 0.71 s (40%)
Running
Stance Phase
= 0.35 s (40%)
Swing Phase
= 0.51 s (60%) Initial Contact
(first cycle) t1 = 1.48 s
Toe Off (first cycle) t2= 2.55 s
Initial Contact (second cycle)
t3= 3.26 s
Initial Contact (first cycle) t4= 0.79 s
Toe Off (first cycle) t5= 1.14 s
Initial Contact (second cycle)
t6= 1.65 s
Gait data display wirelessly (b)
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
Voltage (V)
Time (Second) Heel Metatarsal
Time (s) (a)
Voltage (V)
2 km/h (Walking)
SwingStance
t1 t2 t3
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.020
Voltage (V)
Time (Second) Heel Metatarsal
Voltage (V)
Time (s) 5 km/h (Running)
SwingStance
t4t5t6
Figure 3.5: Sensors’ outputs in terms of voltage for (a) walking gait and (b) running gait of the left foot. (c) Experimental motions for walking gait (top) and running gait (bottom). (d) The gait analysis viewed from a smartphone through Bluetooth communication.
53
compared in the same time frame of 10 s. It can be observed that, in every gait cycle, the sensor in the metatarsal region produces larger output responses than the heel region. A gait cycle is measured from a heel strike to the subsequent heel strike of the same foot. It is consisted of stance and swing phases. Stance phase refers to the motion of the heel when it makes an initial contact with the ground until the toe takes off from the ground; whereas swing phase is the period where the toe takes off from the ground and moves forward until the heel makes the next initial contact with the ground (Tao et al., 2012). Referring to Figure 3.5 (a) and (b), the period of the peak response from the heel to the metatarsal region is labelled as stance phase, whereas the period of the peak value from the metatarsal to the heel region is labelled as swing phase. The response time for the sensor is 0.286 s, which is sufficient to capture the data. Figure 3.5 (c) compares the stance phase (blue region) and swing phase (orange region) for the walking and running motions. It can be observed that, for a gait cycle (1.48 s to 3.26 s) of walking motion, a stance phase of 60% was measured, which was higher than the swing phase (40%). Running motion, on the other hand, has lower percentage of stance phase (40%) than the swing phase (60%) in a gait cycle (0.79 s to 1.65 s). With reference to Figure 3.5 (c), the results are agreeing well with those reported in (Whittle, 2014, Ounpuu, 1994), showing that the sensor is able to identify walking and running motions of a subject accurately.
Figure 3.5 (d) shows the output voltages of both the heel and metatarsal sensors that are displayed on a smartphone through Bluetooth communication, which enables unobtrusive and real-time gait monitoring application.
54 Ankle Joint Angle Sensing
The stretchable resistive-based sensor can also be used for flex sensing application, such as ankle joint angle. The sensor was firmly attached onto the ankle support, then the ankle was moved in plantarflexion and dorsiflexion. The experiment results were plotted in Figure 3.6 (a) and (b). Figure 3.6 (a) shows the sensor’s linear output in terms of the relative change of resistance at different ankle’s joint angles. As compared to the piezoelectric-oriented flex sensing technique, the resistive-based sensing mechanism offers the advantage of speed independence (Cao et al., 2019). To evaluate the ankle’s joint angle at a gait cycle, similar to the previous setup, the subject was instructed to walk on the treadmill with the speed of 2 km/h. The experimental result in Figure 3.6 (b)
-20 -10 0 10 20
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
ΔR/R0
Ankle joint angle (o) (a)
Toe off
0 20 40 60 80 100
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Ankle joint angle (o)
Gait cycle (%) Stance phase Swing phase
(b)
Heel strike
(a) (b)
Figure 3.6: Experimental results of the sensor for (a) different ankle joint angles and (b) gait cycle of the subject’s left ankle.
shows ~ 60% of the gait cycle was measured in a stance phase (defined as the ankle of 0º (heel strike) to extreme plantarflexion ~ -15º (toe off)), whereas ~ 40% of the gait cycle was measured at the swing phase (defined as the ankle returns to ~0º just after the toe off). This result shows a similar agreement with
55
those reported in (Mai and Commuri, 2016, Mengüç et al., 2014), proving the capability of the sensor in flex sensing.