# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

doi: 10.3934/jgm.2020032

## Geometric optimal techniques to control the muscular force response to functional electrical stimulation using a non-isometric force-fatigue model

 1 McTAO team, INRIA Sophia Antipolis, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Valbonne, France 2 L@bISEN, Yncréa Ouest, 20 rue Cuirassé Bretagne, 29200 Brest, France

* Corresponding author: Jérémy Rouot

Received  May 2020 Revised  September 2020 Published  November 2020

Fund Project: This research paper benefited from the support of the FMJH Program PGMO and from the support of EDF, Thales, Orange and the authors are partially supported by the Labex AMIES

A recent force-fatigue parameterized mathematical model, based on the seminal contributions of V. Hill to describe muscular activity, allows to predict the muscular force response to external electrical stimulation (FES) and it opens the road to optimize the FES-input to maximize the force response to a pulse train, to track a reference force while minimizing the fatigue for a sequence of pulse trains or to follow a reference joint angle trajectory to produce motion in the non-isometric case. In this article, we introduce the geometric frame to analyze the dynamics and we present Pontryagin types necessary optimality conditions adapted to digital controls, used in the experiments, vs permanent control and which fits in the optimal sampled-data control frame. This leads to Hamiltonian differential variational inequalities, which can be numerically implemented vs direct optimization schemes.

Citation: Bernard Bonnard, Jérémy Rouot. Geometric optimal techniques to control the muscular force response to functional electrical stimulation using a non-isometric force-fatigue model. Journal of Geometric Mechanics, doi: 10.3934/jgm.2020032
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
Extremal of the Ding et al. model defined on $[0,T]$, $T = 100ms$, with four sampling times and maximizing the final force
Sensitivity analysis. Time evolution of the Jacobi fields component $\delta F(\cdot)$ according to Definition 2.7 and associated to the trajectory of the force-fatigue model
Sensitivity analysis. Time evolution of the Jacobi fields component $\delta F(\cdot)$ where their initializations are $10\%$ of the physical values $A_{\text{rest}},K_{m,\text{rest}},\tau_{1,\text{rest}}$ associated to the trajectory of the force-fatigue model
Time evolution on $[0,T],\, T = 0.4s$ of the state of the Ding et al. model computed with the indirect approach maximizing $\varphi(x(T)) = F(T)$ with $n = 6$, $I_m = 20$ms. The optimal value is the same as the optimal value computed with the direct method (see Fig.5). The model parameters are given in Table 1
Time evolution on $[0,T],\, T = 0.4s$ of the normalized state of the Ding et al. model computed with the direct approach maximizing $\varphi(x(T)) = F(T)$ with $n = 6$, $I_m = 20$ms. The model parameters are given in Table 1
Time evolution on $[0,T],\, T = 0.9s$ of the normalized state of the Marion et al. model computed with the direct approach maximizing $\varphi(x(T)) = F(T)/F_{ext}+A_{90}(T)/A_{90,0}$ with $n = 10$, $I_m = 20$ms. The model parameters are given in Table 2
Time evolution on $[0,T],\, T = 0.9s$ of the normalized state of the Marion et al. model with the direct method when considering $t_i = T - (n-i+1)I_m,\ i = 1,\dots,n$, $n = 10$, $I_m = 20ms$. The model parameters are given in Table 2
Numerical values for parameters of the Marion et al. model
 Variable Value Unit Variable Value Unit $F_{load}$ 45.4 N $F_M$ 247.5 N $\tau_c$ 20×-3 s $\tau_{fat}$ 99.4 s $A_{90,0}$ 2100 N s−1 $K_{m,0}$ 3.52×-1 $\tau_{1,0}$ 3.61×-2 s $\tau_2$ 5.21×-2 s $a$ 4.49×-4 deg−2 $b$ 3.44×-2 deg−1 $v_1$ 3.71×-1 N deg−2 $v_2$ 2.29×-2 deg−1 $\ell = L/I$ 9.85 kg m−1 $\alpha_A$ -4.02×-1 s−2 $\alpha_{K_m}$ 1.36×-5 s−1 N−1 $\alpha_{\tau_1}$ 2.93×-5 N−1 $\beta_{\tau_1}$ 8.54×-7 s deg−1 N−1 $R_0$ 1.143 $\beta_{90}$ 0 deg−1 s−1 $\beta_{K_m}$ 0 deg−1 N−1
 Variable Value Unit Variable Value Unit $F_{load}$ 45.4 N $F_M$ 247.5 N $\tau_c$ 20×-3 s $\tau_{fat}$ 99.4 s $A_{90,0}$ 2100 N s−1 $K_{m,0}$ 3.52×-1 $\tau_{1,0}$ 3.61×-2 s $\tau_2$ 5.21×-2 s $a$ 4.49×-4 deg−2 $b$ 3.44×-2 deg−1 $v_1$ 3.71×-1 N deg−2 $v_2$ 2.29×-2 deg−1 $\ell = L/I$ 9.85 kg m−1 $\alpha_A$ -4.02×-1 s−2 $\alpha_{K_m}$ 1.36×-5 s−1 N−1 $\alpha_{\tau_1}$ 2.93×-5 N−1 $\beta_{\tau_1}$ 8.54×-7 s deg−1 N−1 $R_0$ 1.143 $\beta_{90}$ 0 deg−1 s−1 $\beta_{K_m}$ 0 deg−1 N−1
Numerical values for parameters of the Ding et al. model
 Variable Value Unit Variable Value Unit $\tau_c$ 20×-3 s $\tau_{fat}$ 127 s $A_{rest}$ 3.009 kN s−1 $K_{m,rest}$ 1.03×-1 $\tau_{1,rest}$ 5.1×-2 s $\tau_2$ 1.24×-1 s $\alpha_A$ -4×-1 s−2 $\alpha_{K_m}$ 1.9×-2 s−1 kN−1 $\alpha_{\tau_1}$ 2.1×-2 kN−1 $R_0$ 2
 Variable Value Unit Variable Value Unit $\tau_c$ 20×-3 s $\tau_{fat}$ 127 s $A_{rest}$ 3.009 kN s−1 $K_{m,rest}$ 1.03×-1 $\tau_{1,rest}$ 5.1×-2 s $\tau_2$ 1.24×-1 s $\alpha_A$ -4×-1 s−2 $\alpha_{K_m}$ 1.9×-2 s−1 kN−1 $\alpha_{\tau_1}$ 2.1×-2 kN−1 $R_0$ 2
 [1] Stefan Doboszczak, Manil T. Mohan, Sivaguru S. Sritharan. Pontryagin maximum principle for the optimal control of linearized compressible navier-stokes equations with state constraints. Evolution Equations & Control Theory, 2020  doi: 10.3934/eect.2020110 [2] Hai Huang, Xianlong Fu. Optimal control problems for a neutral integro-differential system with infinite delay. Evolution Equations & Control Theory, 2020  doi: 10.3934/eect.2020107 [3] Hong Niu, Zhijiang Feng, Qijin Xiao, Yajun Zhang. A PID control method based on optimal control strategy. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (1) : 117-126. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020019 [4] Elimhan N. Mahmudov. Infimal convolution and duality in convex optimal control problems with second order evolution differential inclusions. Evolution Equations & Control Theory, 2021, 10 (1) : 37-59. doi: 10.3934/eect.2020051 [5] Lars Grüne, Matthias A. Müller, Christopher M. Kellett, Steven R. Weller. Strict dissipativity for discrete time discounted optimal control problems. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2020  doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2020046 [6] Vaibhav Mehandiratta, Mani Mehra, Günter Leugering. Fractional optimal control problems on a star graph: Optimality system and numerical solution. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2021, 11 (1) : 189-209. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2020033 [7] Christian Clason, Vu Huu Nhu, Arnd Rösch. Optimal control of a non-smooth quasilinear elliptic equation. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2020  doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2020052 [8] Hongbo Guan, Yong Yang, Huiqing Zhu. A nonuniform anisotropic FEM for elliptic boundary layer optimal control problems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (3) : 1711-1722. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020179 [9] Manil T. Mohan. First order necessary conditions of optimality for the two dimensional tidal dynamics system. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2020  doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2020045 [10] Yuan Tan, Qingyuan Cao, Lan Li, Tianshi Hu, Min Su. A chance-constrained stochastic model predictive control problem with disturbance feedback. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (1) : 67-79. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019099 [11] Ali Wehbe, Rayan Nasser, Nahla Noun. Stability of N-D transmission problem in viscoelasticity with localized Kelvin-Voigt damping under different types of geometric conditions. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2020  doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2020050 [12] Guangjun Shen, Xueying Wu, Xiuwei Yin. Stabilization of stochastic differential equations driven by G-Lévy process with discrete-time feedback control. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (2) : 755-774. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020133 [13] Xiaorui Wang, Genqi Xu, Hao Chen. Uniform stabilization of 1-D Schrödinger equation with internal difference-type control. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2021022 [14] Youming Guo, Tingting Li. Optimal control strategies for an online game addiction model with low and high risk exposure. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020347 [15] Pierluigi Colli, Gianni Gilardi, Jürgen Sprekels. Deep quench approximation and optimal control of general Cahn–Hilliard systems with fractional operators and double obstacle potentials. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2021, 14 (1) : 243-271. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020213 [16] Lars Grüne, Roberto Guglielmi. On the relation between turnpike properties and dissipativity for continuous time linear quadratic optimal control problems. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2021, 11 (1) : 169-188. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2020032 [17] Jingrui Sun, Hanxiao Wang. Mean-field stochastic linear-quadratic optimal control problems: Weak closed-loop solvability. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2021, 11 (1) : 47-71. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2020026 [18] Arthur Fleig, Lars Grüne. Strict dissipativity analysis for classes of optimal control problems involving probability density functions. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2020  doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2020053 [19] Xiuli Xu, Xueke Pu. Optimal convergence rates of the magnetohydrodynamic model for quantum plasmas with potential force. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (2) : 987-1010. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020150 [20] João Marcos do Ó, Bruno Ribeiro, Bernhard Ruf. Hamiltonian elliptic systems in dimension two with arbitrary and double exponential growth conditions. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2021, 41 (1) : 277-296. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020138

2019 Impact Factor: 0.649

## Tools

Article outline

Figures and Tables