See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298214399

Computational modeling and analysis of the

human locomotion based on experimental data

Conference Paper January 2007

CITATIONS READS

0 8

3 authors, including:

Miguel T. Silva Paulo Flores

University of Lisbon University of Minho
93 PUBLICATIONS 709 CITATIONS 361 PUBLICATIONS 2,257 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Available from: Paulo Flores

Retrieved on: 29 August 2016
 Actas da DSM2007
Conferncia Nacional de
Dinmica de Sistemas Multicorpo
(P. Flores e M. Silva eds.)
Guimares, Portugal, 6-7 Dezembro 2007

COMPUTATIONAL MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF THE HUMAN LOCOMOTION BASED

ON EXPERIMENTAL DATA

Fernando Meireles Miguel Silva Paulo Flores

Universidade do Minho Instituto Superior Tcnico, Universidade do Minho
Campus de Azurm Universidade Tcnica de Lisboa Campus de Azurm
4800-058 Guimares Av. Rovisco Pais, 1 4800-058 Guimares
Portugal 1049-001 Lisboa Portugal
Email: salgadomeireles@gmail.com Portugal Email: pflores@dem.uminho.pt
Email: miguelsilva@ist.utl.pt

ABSTRACT These methodologies were implemented in

The present work is developed in the field of human
movement biomechanics, thus it is performed according to
the principles of mechanics and anatomic-physiologic
knowledge. The study and characterization of the human
body movements, in the context of multibody system
formulation, have deserved the attention of the academic
and scientific community during the past few years. In these
studies, the physical and geometrical characteristics of the
bodies represented by biomodels, including some tissue
components have been included in the development of
computational codes.
A general methodology for kinematic analysis of
human locomotion based on experimental data is presented
and discussed in this work. The kinematic equations of
motion and the human biomodel description are developed
by using Cartesian coordinates. The trajectories of the
bodies that constitute the biomodel are obtained from
experimental data acquisition, in which relevant
anatomical points of reference are followed, as they
represent the human natural gait motion. These points are
typically used to represent the natural joints. After
obtaining the data relative to the human gait motion, the
points are interpolated using cubic splines, in order to
define the necessary analytical expressions that represent
the guiding constraint equations. These constraints guide
all the degrees-of-freedom of the biomodel specifying the
motion of the whole biomodel. The external forces applied
to the biomechanical system and theirs respective points of
application were acquired by a pressure platform that
reads the reaction forces between the ground and the foot
segment. The experimental data was acquired in the
Biomechanics Laboratory of the Instituto Superior Tcnico,
Universidade Tcnica de Lisboa.
computational codes devoted to the kinematic and dynamic
analysis of multibody systems. The validation of the
computational methodology was performed prescribing
published data available in the literature, with acceptable
results. Finally the experimental data was processed and
prescribed in the code.
1. INTRODUCTION
It is known that computational simulation of the human
motion requires the implementation of mathematical
models that correctly describe the behavior of the human
body and its interaction with the surrounding environment.
In a broad sense, there are essentially two major classes of
biomechanical models: (i) the ones described using finite
elements methods; (ii) and the ones described using
multibody formulations. Finite element models are applied
in cases where localized structural deformations or soft
tissues need to be described and analyzed in detail [1],
while multibody models are usually applied in cases where
gross-motions are involved and when complex interactions
with the surrounding environment are expected [2]. Gait as
a gross-motion simulation is usually described using
multibody formulations.
Computer simulation of several human capabilities has
shown to be useful in many research and development
activities, such as: analysis of top athletic actions, to
improve different sporting performances [3]; optimization
of the design of sportive equipment [4]; ergonomic studies,
to assess operating conditions for comfort and efficiency in
different aspects of human body interactions with the
environment [5]; orthopedics, to improve the design and
analysis of prosthesis [6]; occupant dynamic analysis for
crashworthiness and vehicle safety related research and

223
 Fernando Meireles, Miguel Silva, Paulo Flores
design [7]; and gait analysis, for generation of normal gait
patterns and consequent diagnosis of pathologies and
disabilities [8].
In recently past decades we have had some researchers,
such as Pandy [9], Lankarani [10], Wojtyra [11] and
Yamaguchi [12], who focused their attention on the study
of the human locomotion. Gait description and
characterization can be found in works by Winter [8], Perry
[13], Whittle [14], and Norkin et al. [15], while normal
plots data, concerning articular angles, moments-of-force
and power are found in works by, Whittle [14] and Winter
[16].
The present work looks at the development of a general
methodology to perform a biomechanical analysis of the
kinematics of human gait, using a two-dimensional
multibody systems formulation. Being a sagittal-plane
model, it cannot be used to study movements that occur in
frontal and transverse planes. Although, the six major
determinants of gait, i.e., hip, knee and ankle flexion-
extension, pelvic rotation, pelvic list, and lateral pelvic
displacement [15], can only be study in three-dimensional
models [9], the development of two-dimensional models is
far more simple, and can be interesting concerning joint
flexion-extension movements and joint sagittal moments
[17], as the goal of locomotion is to propel the body in the
plane of progression while supporting the body against the
gravity, the major portion of work was performed in the
sagittal plane [18].
2. MULTIBODY SYSTEMS FORMULATION
2.1. Multibody concept
A typical multibody system (MBS) is defined as a
collection of rigid or flexible bodies that have their relative
motion constrained by kinematic joints and that are acted
upon forces. The forces applied over the system
components may be the result of springs, dampers,
actuators or external forces. A generic description of a
multibody model is represented in Figure 1. In the
formulation presented in this work only rigid bodies are
considered. In the two-dimensional space, when the bodies
are considered to be rigid, they present three degrees-of-
freedom (DOF).
Revolute joint
External
forces
Spring Body n
Spherical Body i
joint
Body 2
Body 3
Body 1
Actuator
Figure 1. Representation of a general multibody system.
2.2. Cartesian coordinates
There are different coordinates and formalisms that
lead to suitable descriptions of multibody systems, each of
them presenting relative advantages and drawbacks. The
application of Cartesian coordinates has the advantage that
the formulation of the equations of motion is
straightforward [19]. In the two-dimensional space, the
configuration of the rigid body can be defined through three
224
independent coordinates: two coordinates describing the
body local system axis localization and one coordinate
describing the body orientation in relation to global system
axis. The position of the body with respect to global
coordinate system XY is defined by the coordinate vector
ri=[x y]iT that represents the location of the local reference
frame ()i. The orientation of the local frame with respect
to the global system axis is represented by i. Therefore, the
vector of coordinates that describes completely the rigid
body i in the two-dimensional space is,
q i = {x y }i
T
(1)
2.3. Constraint Equations
A kinematic joint imposes certain conditions on the
relative motion between the adjacent bodies that it
comprises. When these conditions are expressed in
analytical form, they are called constraint equations. In a
simple way, a constraint is any condition that reduces the
number of degrees of freedom in a system.
In this work planar revolute joints are used and a
driving constraint equation that guides the bodies center-
of-mass (CM) along the time is developed. The revolute
joint is a pin and bush type of joint that constrains the
relative translation between the two bodies i and j, allowing
only the relative rotations. In general, the motion of one or
more bodies in a MBS is specified, i.e., the system is
guided typically by rotational or translational actuators.
Other type of guiding constraints are those associated with
the known trajectories of the bodies center-of-mass (CM),
which can be obtained by experimental data acquisition, as
it is illustrated in Figure 2. For a free body in planar space,
the mathematical equation that represents the guiding
constraint can be written as,
x i t ix (t )
y i t iy (t ) = 0
(2)
(g,3)
t (t )
i i
where, t i j (t ) (j = x, y, ) represents the trajectory described
by the CM of body i.
ti j (t )
Y
(i)
X
Figura 2. Body trajectory guiding a free body.
Since the bodys trajectory of CM, or anatomical
points, are typically discrete and obtained experimentally,
in general, the data collected are used to derive the
mathematical expressions by interpolating the coordinates
along time. In this study, this procedure is obtained by
employing cubic splines interpolation, since higher-order
polynomials tend to swing through wild oscillations in the
vicinity of an abrupt change, whereas cubic spline provides
much more smooth transitions [20]. Furthermore, the use of
cubic splines is quite useful to guarantee the continuity of
the first and the second derivatives, velocity and
DSM2007
 Fernando Meireles, Miguel Silva, Paulo Flores

acceleration respectively, property that is extremely

important in the kinematic analysis.
When the configuration of a MBS is described by n
Cartesian coordinates, then a set of m algebraic kinematic
independent holonomic constraints can be written in a
compact form as,
(q, t ) = 0
where q is the vector of generalized coordinates and t is the
time variable, in general associated with the driving
elements.
4. EXPERIMENTAL DATA ACQUISITION
The motion data of the system consists of the trajectory
of a set of anatomical points located at the joints and
extremities of the subject under analysis, as depicted in Fig
4. To capture human gait, a video camera (sagittal plane)
are used to reconstruct the two-dimensional coordinates of
(3) the anatomical points. Furthermore, a pressure platform was
used to obtain the ground reaction forces.

3. BIOMECHANICAL MODEL OF HUMAN

LOCOMOTION
In this section a biomechanical model of the human
body, used in analysis of the stride period, is briefly
presented. This model is developed and analyzed within a
general purpose multibody code that uses the
methodologies described in the previous section. The model
is composed by 7 bodies, corresponding to the main body
segments. Thus, the model have 7*3=21 coordinates
(n=21). A description of the 7 anatomical segments and
their corresponding bodies is summarized in Tab. 1. The
bodies are connected by 6 ideal revolute joints, as it is Figure 4. Sagittal data acquisition showing the set of
illustrated in Figure 3. Thus, 6*2=12 constraints are added anatomical points location. The anatomical
points are the extremes of limb segments,
to the system, which leads to 9 DOF. These correspond to 6 specifically, Glenohumeral joint (in the
rotations about revolute joints, plus 2 translations and 1 shoulder); Greater trochanter (hip joint);
rotation of the base body ( HAT, acronym for head-arms- Femoral condyles (for knee joint); Malleolus
trunk). These 9 DOF are associated with the guiding (defining ankle joint); and finally, the Head of
metatarsal in foot. Another point is located in
constraints. the Heel to better see heel contact.

Before proceeding with a kinematic and dynamic

1 analysis, some steps of data acquisition and processing
needed to be executed. At first, the 25Hz video was
converted into JPEGs with Video2Photo freeware
5 2 program. Following this digitization process, a manual,
frame to frame, follow up process was performed to acquire
the positions (x,y) of each anatomical point illustrated in
Fig. 4, along the gait cycle. These positions are
3
6 denominated natural coordinates [21]. These coordinates
are the raw signal from this experimental work, therefore
7 they need to be filtered. A filtering process was performed
4
using the above mentioned low-pass Butterworth 2nd order
Figura 3. Two-dimensional biomechanical model. filter with zero-phase lag. An estimation for the values of
the cut-off frequencies was obtained from Residual
CM Moment
Analysis [22,23] and depend on motion cadence and the
Length Proximal Mass of location of the anatomical points. Then, the obtained values
Segment Description were compared to the ones obtained by Silva [23] and some
[m] Location [kg] Inertia
2
[m] [Kg.m ] adjustments were made. The cut-off frequencies used vary
Right from 3Hz to 5Hz, which are between the typically range for
1 0.2575 -0.0355 19.2213 1.03923
HAT Gait analysis (from 2 to 6 Hz).
2 Right Thigh 0.3141 0.1360 5.67000 0.05836 The filtered natural coordinates were then converted to
3 Right Leg 0.4081 0.1840 2.63655 0.04005 Cartesian coordinates. This conversion was made using the
4 Right foot 0.1221 0.0610 0.82215 0.00273 anthropometric data [16] relating the extremes of the limb
5 Left Thigh 0.3141 0.1360 5.67000 0.05836 segment to the center-of-mass location ( ri = [ x y]iT ). The
6 Left Leg 0.4081 0.1840 2.63655 0.04005
7 Left foot 0.1221 0.0610 0.82215 0.00273 segments orientations (i) are obtained by trigonometric
relations. The next step consists on the interpolation of the
Table 1. Definition of the seven segments of the human Cartesian coordinates variation along time in order to
biomechanical model.
achieve bodies trajectory curves ( t i j (t ) ). Based on these
curves, the analytical constraint equations, given by Eq. 2,
can easily be obtained. Still, a kinematic inconsistency
problem, induced either by skin motion or by the fact that

225 DSM2007
 Fernando Meireles, Miguel Silva, Paulo Flores

anatomical joints are not perfect mechanical joints, need to

be solved. Thus, one more step of data processing must be  = g + g (c )
Mq (6)
performed. The Newton-Raphson iterative method is used.
with the acceleration constraint equations,
Using the non-consistent positions as initial estimates in
this iterative process, a convergent solution is obtained after  =
qq (7)
3 or 4 iterations.
Notice that the cubic spline interpolation, as well as  and
and are solved for q in each time set.
the resolution of the kinematic inconsistency problem, are
processes that are embedded in the programs used to START

perform kinematic and dynamic analysis of gait.

Read input data Evaluate Solve linear equations of
System mass matrix, M motion for q and
t = t0 Jacobian matrix, q
qt = q0 M qT q
 g
Newton-Raphson Constraint functions, , =
q t = q 0 Generalized forces, g q 0
Iterative Method

t = t + t

No
Figure 5. Kinematically consistent lengths after a
Integrate the auxiliary vector
previous kinematic analysis.The expression that Is t>tend?
Form the auxiliary vector

describes the iterative procedure y t + t = [q T q T ]T y t = [q T q

 T ]T

is: q (qi )q i = (q) where, qi = q qi is the

Yes

generalized coordinates at iteration i.

STOP

Figura 6. Flowchart of computational procedure for

5. DYNAMICS OF THE BIOMECHANICAL MODEL
Before proceed with a dynamic analysis of human
locomotion, a previous kinematic analysis was performed
in order to achieve some initial required conditions ( q0 , q 0 )
and guaranty the kinematic consistency.
The methodology proposed in this work to model the
guiding constraints associated with bodies trajectories was
implemented in KAP FORTRAN code (KAP, acronym for
Kinematic Analysis Program), which is a computational
program developed by Nikravesh [19] with the purpose to
perform kinematic analysis of multibody systems. The
validation of the developed code, renamed KABIOS, was
performed firstly with sin(t) function, since it is quite easy
to calculate its first and second derivatives, [24], and finally
with published data from Winter [16], both for positions,
velocities and accelerations of the bodies center-of-mass
[25].
The dynamic analysis of biomechanical model was
performed in a program devoted to dynamic analysis of
multibody systems (DAP) developed by Nikravesh [19].
The computational strategy of this code is presented in Fig.
6. This code is based in a forward direct integration method
(DIM) of a system of differential algebraic equations
(DAE) that define the system and is written as,
M Tq q
 g
= (4)
q 0
where M is the system mass matrix, q  is the vector that
g
contains the system accelerations, is the generalized force
vector, which contains all external forces and
moments, q = /q is the Jacobian matrix of the
constraint equations, is the right hand side of acceleration
equation, and finally, is the(c ) vector of Lagrange
multipliers that are related with g the vector of constraint
reaction equations, by,
g ( c ) = qT
dynamic analysis of multibody systems; Direct
Integration Method (DIM).
The developed guiding constraint formulation from
KABIOS was implemented on DAP. A new methodology
to evaluate the external forces applied in the system, in this
case foot reaction forces, was also implemented in the code.
The program was renamed DABIOS (acronym for Dynamic
Analysis of BIOMechanical Systems), and its validation was
once more performed prescribing published data from
Winter [16]. Figure 7 shows the juxtaposition of the
DABIOS Knee joint reaction forces output, with the data
reported by Winter (Predicted).
For Ankle and Knee reactions forces values are similar
to the ones predicted (correlation values around 99.5% for
ankle and for knee joints). For the Hip vertical reaction
forces (Ry) the correlation is also above 99.5%, yet, for the
Hip horizontal reaction forces (Rx) the obtained values
differ from the predicted in nearly 3%. This may be a
consequence from a poor definition of HAT segment,
regarding Mass and Moment of Inertia values. This
problem results from the lack of data related to the Left Leg
(bodies 5, 6 and 7). Thus, only the Right Leg + HAT
(bodies 1 to 4) data was prescribed in the DABIOS
program. From this, there are forces implicit in the HAT
segment that can not be considered, resulting in a lack of
accuracy in the Hip reaction forces calculation. Finally, all
the three Rx plots present a divergence of the obtained data
in the initial and terminal ends. These deviations are related
to lack of accuracy in interpolation of the edge pieces of the
cubic splines. This problem shall be overcome with the
addiction of residual data in the terminal ends of the
considered interpolation data. Finally, concerning
horizontal reaction forces (Ry), a decrease was observed to
the upper segments, as it was expected because of the
influence of the segment masses.
(5)

These DAE equations are a blend of the equations of

motion for a constrained multibody system of rigid bodies,

226 DSM2007
 Fernando Meireles, Miguel Silva, Paulo Flores

150 150
DABIOS Output
100 DABIOS Output
100 Predicted
Predicted
50 50

RX [N]
RX [N]

0 0

-50
-50
-100
-100
-150
-150 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time[s]
Time[s]
700
700 DABIOS Output
600
600 DABIOS Output Predicted
500
Predicted
500 400

RY [N]
400 300
RY [N]

200
300
100
200
0
100 -100
0 -200
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-100 Time[s]
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time[s]
Figure 9. Hip Reaction Forces (RX, RY) obtained in the
Figure 7. Ankle Reaction Forces (RX, RY) obtained in the Right 1/2 HAT segment (body 1).In the Thigh
Right Leg segment (body 3).In the Foot segment the values for Hip Reaction Forces are
segment the values for Ankle Reaction Forces the same in modulus but inverse in signal.
are the same in modulus but inverse in signal. [0,0.4]s - Swing period; [0.4,1]s - Stance period.
[0,0.4]s - Swing period; [0.4,1]s - Stance period.
Free body diagrams were taken into consideration in
the calculation of the joints moments-of-force. After the
150 evaluation of the forces presented in the bodies center-of-
100 DABIOS Output mass (Fx,Fy), the moments-of-force were obtained by the
Predicted following equations,
50

n ankle = Fx b y + Fy b x + n CM (9)
RX [N]

0 foot

-50

-100
n knee = Fx b y + Fy b x + n CM
leg + n ankle
(10)

-150
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
n hip = Fx b y + Fy b x + n CM
thigh + n knee
(11)
Time[s]

700
DABIOS Output
The joints moments-of-force variation during the
600
Predicted
prescribed gait cycle, obtained by Eq. 9, 10 and 11, are
500
illustrated in Fig. 10. Both for Ankle, Knee and Hip joint
400
moments-of-force, the calculated values (plotted as solid
R Y [N]

300
200
lines) are compared with the predicted ones, obtained from
100
Winters data [16].
0
The plots display a fine correlation for ankle and for
-100
knee, yet for hip, the results are poor. There is an excessive
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 lack of accuracy in the terminal ends of the plot, and more
Time[s] significantly, the plot presents a wild oscillation in the
beginning of Stance period (0.4s). The predicted values
Figure 8. Knee Reaction Forces (RX, RY) obtained in the present a huge variation at this time (from 11.7 to 54.4
Right Thigh segment (body 2). In the Leg
segment the values for Knee Reaction Forces N.m/Kg), resulting in a poor response in the calculated
are the same in modulus but inverse in signal. data. This poor response is presented by a smooth transition
[0,0.4]s - Swing period; [0.4,1]s - Stance period. of the moments-of-force values between Swing and Stance
period, and by a following oscillatory response ,[0.4,0.6]s,
Regarding articular moments evaluation, the equations that might be a consequence from interpolation problems.
of motion, for an unconstrained rigid body in a two Briefly, the results show a fine correlation with the
dimensional space must be considered. They are written as, predicted ones both for joint reaction forces and moments-
of-force, exception made for hip articular moment.
F = m a
x x
(8) Nevertheless notice that a substantial amount of work is
F = m (a
y y
ag ) done in the frontal plane at hip joint (hip
adduction/abduction moments-of-force) [17,18,26,27]
n = I which can result in poor accuracy in a two-dimensional
sagittal analysis. In the end, joints mechanical powers were
evaluated.

227 DSM2007
 Fernando Meireles, Miguel Silva, Paulo Flores

100
as it can be applied to a set of two-dimensional
biomechanical models of human motion.
Predicted Obtained
For future developments of the present work the
80
Ankle Moment [N.m]

60
Plantarflexion following items are proposed:
40
Include muscle actuators in the system formulation,
20 intending to study their activation as well as their
0 contribution to the joints moments-of-force.
-20 Include realistic joints in the developed
methodology, in order to account for their geometric
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Time [s]
and physical properties as the bodies interact.
50
Test the multibody formulation on a whole body
40
Predicted Obtained model, such as an eight bodies biomechanical model
30 Extension composed by: HAT, Pelvis and the Lower Limbs
each of them composed by three segments (Thigh,
Knee Moment [N.m]

20

10 Leg and Foot).

0 Perform a sensitivity analysis for variables such as
-10
the location of the anatomical points.
-20
Evaluate the sensibility of the proposed
methodology to gait pathological cases. For this to be
-30

-40
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 possible, some future experimental trials need to be
Time [s] performed to compare the sensibility of this two-
dimensional methodology with the software currently
60 Predicted Obtained available in the market.
40
Extension
Hip Moment [N.m]

20

-20

-40
-60
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Time [s]
Figure 10. Articular moments for Ankle, Knee and Hip
joints during a gait cycle. [0,0.4]s - Swing
period; [0.4,1]s - Stance period.
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this work a general and systematic methodology to
perform kinematic and dynamic analysis of human
locomotion has been developed. In the process, the main
aspects related to multibody systems methodology were
reviewed and discussed in the context of two-dimensional
movement biomechanics.
The methodology was implemented and validated for
kinematic and dynamics analysis of a human gait
biomechanical model available in the literature. In general,
the global results obtained were acceptable and
corroborated by the published literature of this research
field. However there were some differences in what
concerns to the bodies accelerations, as a result of the
cubic spline interpolation errors, which affect the systems
dynamic response.
Further, an experimental work has been performed
with the acquisition of gait data from a biomechanical
laboratory. Some methods to solve the problems related
with data acquisition and processing were discussed and
applied.
The study of human motion and the calculation of
reaction forces and net moments-of-force developed at the
joints of a subject during the execution of specified physical
tasks are of major importance in many areas such as
biomedical engineering, physical rehabilitation,
ergonomics, and several fields of biomechanics such as
implant design. The general methodology developed in this
work is expected to be a potential application in these areas,
REFERNCIAS
[1] F. Bandak, R. Eppinger, A. Onimaya, Traumatic
Brain Injury, Bioscience and Mechanics, Mary Ann
0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Liebert. Inc. New York, NY,1996.
[2] J. Wismans, Models in Injury Biomechanics for
Improved Passive Vehicle Safety. Crashworthiness of
Transportation Systems: Structural Impact and Occupant
Protection, Ambrsio, J., Pereira, M. and Silva, F. (eds),
Kiuwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1996.
[3] C. CRaasch, et. Al., Muscle Coordination of
Maximum-Speed Pedaling. Journal of Biomechanics,
30(6), 595-602, 1997.
[4] B. Zappa, et. Al., Analysis and Synthesis of 3D
Motion for Multi-Body Systems with Regards to Sport
Performances. Ninth World Congress on the Theory of
Machines and Mechanisms, Milano, Italy,1995.
[5] J. Rasmussen, et. Al., Design Optimization with
Respect to Ergonomic Properties, Structural and
Mu1tidisciplinan Optimization, 24(2), 89-97, 2002.
[6] I. Andriacchi, D. Hurwitz, Gait Biomechanics
and the Evolution of Total Joint Replacement, Gait and
Posture, 5, 256-264, 1997.
[7] J. Ambrsio, J. Dias, A Road Vehicle Multibody
Model for Crash Simulation based on the Plastic Hinges
Aprproach to Structural Deformations, IJCrash, 12(1), 77-
92, 2007.
[8] D. Winter, The Biomechanics and Motor Control
of Human Gait: Normal, Eldery and Pathological.
University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Canada, 1991.
[9] M. Pandy, Computer Modeling and Simulation of
Human Movement, Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 3:24573,
2001.
[10] H. Lankarani, Aircraft Crashworthiness and
Occupant Protection, Chapter in the book, Impact and
Friction of Solids, Structures and Machines, Guran, A., ed.,
Chapter 16, Birkhauser, Boston, 2001.

228 DSM2007
 Fernando Meireles, Miguel Silva, Paulo Flores

[11] M. Wojtyra, Multibody Simulation Model of

Human Walking, Mechanics Based Design of Structures
and Machines, 31(3), 357379, 2003.
[12] G. Yamaguchi, Dynamic Modeling of
Musculoskeletal Motion; A Vectorized Approach for
Biomechanical Analysis in Three Dimensions, Springer,
2006.
[13] J. Perry, Gait Analysis: Normal and Pathological
Function. Thorofare, NJ, Slack, 1992.
[14] M. Whittle, Musculoskeletal Applications of
Three-Dimensional Analysis, Chapter in the book, Three-
Dimensional Analysis of Human Movement, Allard, P.,
Stokes, I., Blanchi, J., eds., Chapter 13, Human Kinetics,
1995.
[15] C. Norkin, et. Al., Articulaes estrutura e
funo: uma abordagem prtica e abrangente, 2 Ed., Rio
de Janeiro, 2001..
[16] D. Winter, Biomechanics and Motor Control of
Human Movement, 3rd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2005.
[17] T. Alkjaer, et. Al., Comparison of inverse
dynamics calculated by two- and three- dimensional models
during walking, Gait and Posture 13: 7377, 2001.
[18] D. Winter, et. Al., Kinematic Analysis of the
Lower Limb During Walking: What Information can be
Gained from a Three-Dimensional Model?,
J.Biomechanics, 28(6), 753- 758, 1995.
[19] P. Nikravesh, Computer-aided analysis of
mechanical systems. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1988.
[20] S. Chapra, et. Al., Numerical Methods for
Engineers, 2nd Ed, McGraw-Hill, 1989.
[21] M. Silva, et. Al., Biomechanical Model with
Joint Resistance for Impact Simulation. Multibody System
Dynamics, 1, 65-84, 1997.
[22] D. Winter, Biomechanics and Motor Control of
Human Movement, 2nd Ed., Wiley, New York, 1990.
[23] M. Silva, Human Motion Analysis Using
Multibody Dynamics and Optimization Tools. PhD
Dissertation, Universidade Tcnica de Lisboa, Instituto
Superior Tcnico, Lisboa, Portugal, 2003.
[24] F. Meireles, et. Al., Kinematic Analysis of
Human Locomotion Based on Experimental Data,
VipImage Thematic Conference on Computational Vision
and Medical Image Processing, 16-19th October, Porto,
Portugal, 2007.
[25] F. Meireles, et. Al., Estudo do Desempenho
Cinemtico-Dinmico de Sistemas Biomecnicos Usando
Metodologias de Sistemas de Corpos Mltiplos, 8
Congreso Iberoamericano de Engenharia Mecnica, 23-25
Outubro, Cusco, Peru, 2007.
[26] F. Anderson, M. Pandy, Static and Dynamic
Optimization Solutions for Gait are Practically Equivalent,
Journal of Biomechanics, 34,153-161, 2001.
[27] M. Ackermann, et. Al., Dynamic analysis of
human gait disorder and metabolical cost estimation. Arch
Appl Mech, 75, 569594, 2006.

229 DSM2007
Fernando Meireles, Miguel Silva, Paulo Flores

230 DSM2007