Dynamic Biomechanical and Load Analysis of a Modular Prosthetic Foot for Active Transfemoral Prosthetic Systems

Abstract

This study presents the dynamic analysis and experimental validation of a modular prosthetic foot designed for integration within an active transfemoral robotic prosthesis (SmartLeg). The work focuses on quantifying the time-dependent biomechanical response of the foot during gait and stair approach, with emphasis on load transfer, energy absorption, and propulsion. The proposed design features a segmented structure with an articulated forefoot, enabling controlled dorsiflexion and improved replication of physiological foot behavior. Dynamic performance was evaluated using finite element analysis (FEA) under representative loading conditions and experimental plantar pressure measurements obtained via a Zebris system. Ground reaction force profiles were normalized to body weight and analyzed across the stance phase. Statistical analysis using repeated-measures ANOVA indicated no significant difference in early stance loading between walking and stair approach (p > 0.05). However, late stance propulsion forces were significantly higher during stair initiation (p < 0.001), with a mean increase of 0.61 F/G (95% CI [0.52, 0.70]).The results demonstrate that the prosthetic foot exhibits stable dynamic behavior and sufficient structural reliability. Moreover, forefoot pressure patterns provide a robust indicator of locomotion intent, supporting the development of predictive, sensor-driven control strategies for adaptive prosthetic systems.

Country : Bosnia and Herzegovina

1 Zlata Jelacic

  1. University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Mechanics, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

IRJIET, Volume 10, Issue 4, April 2026 pp. 223-229

doi.org/10.47001/IRJIET/2026.104032

References

  1. Jelačić, Z, Dedić, R, Dindo, H (2020) Active above-knee prosthesis. Elsevier Academic Press, ISBN 978-0-12-818683-1
  2. D. A. Winter, Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement, 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2009.
  3. J. Perry and J. M. Burnfield, Gait Analysis: Normal and Pathological Function, 2nd ed. Thorofare, NJ, USA: SLACK Incorporated, 2010.
  4. B. J. Hafner, D. J. Sanders, J. Czerniecki, and J. Fergason, “Energy storage and return prostheses: Does patient perception correlate with biomechanical analysis?,” Clinical Biomechanics, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 325–344, 2002.
  5. H. Herr and A. M. Grabowski, “Bionic ankle–foot prosthesis normalizes walking gait for persons with leg amputation,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 279, no. 1728, pp. 457–464, 2012.
  6. S. K. Au, M. Berniker, and H. Herr, “Powered ankle–foot prosthesis to assist level-ground and stair-descent gaits,” Neural Networks, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 654–666, 2008.
  7. F. Sup, A. Bohara, and M. Goldfarb, “Design and control of a powered transfemoral prosthesis,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 263–273, 2008.
  8. P. M. Quesada, L. A. Skinner, and S. J. Hanson, “Finite element analysis of a prosthetic foot during normal walking,” Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 771–780, 2010.
  9. S. Portnoy, A. Gefen, et al., “Finite element modeling of the human foot for plantar pressure estimation,” Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 1486–1492, 2009.
  10. A. Gefen, “Plantar soft tissue loading under the medial metatarsals in the standing diabetic foot,” Medical Engineering & Physics, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 491–499, 2003.
  11. M. Hanlon and R. Anderson, “Real-time gait event detection using wearable sensors,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 105–113, 2009.