| Literature DB >> 33287288 |
Peter B Shull1, Haisheng Xia2.
Abstract
The recent explosion of wearable electronics has led to widespread interest in harvesting human movement energy, particularly during walking, for clinical and health applications. However, the amount of energy available to harvest and the required metabolic rate for wearable energy harvesting varies across subjects. In this paper, we utilize custom energy harvesting sliding shoes to develop and evaluate multivariate linear regression models to predict metabolic rate and energy harvesting rate during overground walking outside of the lab. Subjects performed 200 m self-selected normal and fast walking trials on flat ground with custom sliding shoes. Metabolic rate was measured with a portable breathing analysis system and energy harvesting rate was measured directly from the generator on the custom sliding shoes. Model performance was determined by comparing the difference between actual and predicted metabolic and energy harvesting rates. Overall, predictive modeling closely matched the actual values, and there was no statistical difference between actual and predicted average metabolic rate or between actual and predicted average energy harvesting rate. Energy harvesting sliding shoes could potentially be used for a variety of wearable devices to reduce onboard energy storage, and these findings could serve to inform expected energy harvesting rates and associated required metabolic cost for a diverse array of medical and health applications.Entities:
Keywords: energy harvesting; gait; metabolic cost; model prediction; wearable device
Year: 2020 PMID: 33287288 PMCID: PMC7730444 DOI: 10.3390/s20236915
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Custom sliding shoe created by mounting a sliding mechanism to the sole of a standard walking shoe. A rack-and-pinion converts linear sliding motion to rotational motion of the generator. Energy is harvested as the shoe slides during the stance phase of gait by the generator on the sliding mechanism. The compressed spring returns the sliding mechanism to the original position during the swing phase when the shoe is not in contact with the ground.
Modeling parameters based on individual subject characteristics while walking with the custom sliding energy harvesting shoes.
| Subject | Age (years) | Height (cm) | Weight (kg) | Walking Condition | Walking Speed (m/s) | Step Freq (Hz) | Metabolic Rate (W) | Energy Harvesting Rate (mW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 26 | 171 | 70 | normal | 0.87 | 0.75 | 418.0 | 70.2 |
| fast | 1.24 | 0.94 | 439.8 | 139.5 | ||||
| 2 | 28 | 160 | 53 | normal | 0.81 | 0.76 | 372.6 | 77.1 |
| fast | 1.04 | 1.02 | 375.5 | 95.8 | ||||
| 3 | 27 | 173 | 60 | normal | 1.01 | 0.96 | 354.8 | 85.6 |
| fast | 1.36 | 1.06 | 406.4 | 66.7 | ||||
| 4 | 24 | 169 | 69 | normal | 1.12 | 0.83 | 387.6 | 121.4 |
| fast | 1.31 | 0.79 | 403.5 | 132.7 | ||||
| 5 | 33 | 175 | 74 | normal | 1.08 | 0.74 | 377.5 | 106.1 |
| fast | 1.19 | 0.86 | 435.8 | 75.1 | ||||
| 6 | 24 | 171 | 60 | normal | 0.85 | 0.78 | 273.9 | 152.3 |
| fast | 0.89 | 0.71 | 316.3 | 112.7 | ||||
| 7 | 24 | 180 | 85 | normal | 0.81 | 0.64 | 331.5 | 121.2 |
| fast | 0.85 | 0.63 | 371.1 | 105.8 | ||||
| 8 | 36 | 183 | 65 | normal | 0.94 | 0.67 | 321.2 | 148.3 |
| fast | 1.02 | 0.77 | 410.6 | 158.0 | ||||
| 9 | 25 | 170 | 66 | normal | 0.67 | 0.63 | 402.9 | 90.2 |
| fast | 1.05 | 0.91 | 480.8 | 117.6 | ||||
| 10 | 25 | 175 | 65 | normal | 0.98 | 0.75 | 370.0 | 139.6 |
| fast | 1.28 | 0.85 | 454.2 | 164.1 | ||||
| 11 | 25 | 170 | 64 | normal | 0.78 | 0.69 | 300.8 | 120.5 |
| fast | 1.14 | 0.94 | 443.4 | 122.6 | ||||
| 12 | 22 | 173 | 65 | normal | 0.59 | 0.54 | 432.9 | 106.2 |
| fast | 0.79 | 0.86 | 530.4 | 121.0 |
Figure 2Experimental setup. Subjects performed 200 m normal and fast walking trials on flat ground with the custom sliding shoes. Metabolic rate was measured with a portable breathing analysis system and energy harvesting rate was measured from the generator on the custom sliding shoes.
Figure 3(a) Overall actual and predicted average metabolic rates. There was no statistical difference between actual and predicted average metabolic rates. (b) Overall actual and predicted average energy harvesting rates. There was no statistical difference between actual and predicted average energy harvesting rates.
Figure 4Metabolic rate modeling results across individuals. The trend of the predicted metabolic rates in general followed that of the actual metabolic rates across individual subjects.
Figure 5Energy harvesting rate modeling results across individuals. The trend of the predicted energy harvesting rates in general followed that of the actual energy harvesting rates across individual subjects.