ArticlePDF Available

What puts the spring in your step?

Authors:
  • Ezekiel Biomechanics Group

Abstract

The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Lao Tzu..................... Walking is an interaction between two closed structural systems, the walking organism, and the earth, Newton's Laws of Motion govern their interaction. The first step of the organism requires an outside force to initiate movement. The spring-mass model for walking will require an external force to load the " spring ". This paper proposes that gravity can be used to load the spring and that much of that springiness will be stored in the bones as potential energy. Kewords: Walking, Spring mass model, Closed kinematic chains, internal force, external force
DRAFT
02 Jan 2017
What puts the spring in your
step?
02/01/2017
The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Lao Tzu
Abstract
Walking is an interaction between two closed structural systems, the walking organism and the
earth, Newton’s Laws of Motion govern their interaction. The first step of the organism requires
an outside force to initiate movement. The spring-mass model for walking will require an
external force to load the “spring”. This paper proposes that gravity can be used to load the
spring and that much of that springiness will be stored in the bones as potential energy.
Kewords: Walking, Spring mass model, Closed kinematic chains, internal force, external force
External forces are forces caused by external agent outside of the system. Internal forces
are forces exchanged by the objects in the system. To determine what part should be
considered external and internal, mechanical system should be clearly defined.
https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/linear-momentum-and-collisions-7/
conservation-of-momentum-69/internal-vs-external-forces-295-5222/
A biologic organism is, in Newtonian terms, a close system, a structurally independent
body that needs an external force to interact with another external body. Within the skin
of the organism, the internal organs, including the locomotor system, function as part of
that closed system and cannot interact with other external closed systems without the
intervention of an external force. To get a body to move in relation to another body, such
as the organism moving on the earth, requires the action of an external force. The
kinetic energy taken into a body can be manipulated, but what energy that comes out
cannot be more, or less, than what goes in. Manipulating the incoming energy may be a
function of the internal objects but the exiting energy will never be more than what is put
in. When a bullet shell explodes within a gun barrel, the force of recoil is equal to the
force at the end of the bullet, it is a manipulation of mass and velocity that make it seem
different. Just like with a bullet with its energy coming from the gunpowder, there is
stored internal energy in living bodies that originate in an outside force, the food we eat,
that manifests as tissue “prestress”, the intrinsic tension present in all tissues, but that
energy is limited and rapidly depleted. Its purpose is mostly to keep the internal engines
of life functioning and to prime the pump to facilitate the intake of outside forces.
of 1 9
DRAFT
DRAFT
02 Jan 2017
If you are floating in space, throwing a ball is problematical, you mat be able to
accelerate the ball away from you with your stored internal energy, but you would be
pushed back with equal and opposite force away from the ball. The usual force
generated to throw a ball while standing in place comes from the GRF with kinetic
energy from the GRF converting it to potential energy within the body, and sending it out
again as kinetic energy with the ball movement. The throwing system, the internal
mechanism of the body, is the vehicle that serves as a passthrough for the external
energy. It may take that energy and do various things with it, but in the end, the output
energy will equal the input energy. In our everyday world gravity is the main force to be
reckoned with. A diver coming off a diving board can twist, turn, and distort their body,
that is the internal forces working, but all the twists and turns cannot affect the pull of
gravity. The diver’s body will fall at the rate of 9.8m/sec/sec no matter how hard the
internal forces work.
The first step
A ball sitting on the floor cannot move itself, an additional external force must be applied. It is in
equilibrium, happily obeying Newton’s First Law of Motion, gravity pulling it in toward the center
of the earth and the normal forces from the floor blocking it and pushing out with equal force.
Standing in place with two feet on the ground, a living body cannot move unless they can
muster additional external force to push against the floor. From where? Muscles? As illustrated
in the diver analogy, muscles are an internal force, an additional external force is necessary.
Some energy is stored in muscles, (because of the stored energy they are never lax), and the
same can be said of ligaments and all collagenous tissues as collagen always has some
intrinsic tension within its fibers, and the bone and soft tissues are additionally preloaded with
the compression force of bodyweight. However, when standing, the collagenous tension is
there to hold you upright, merely tensing muscles further gets you no place. To move, gravity
and the GRF must be invoked either by raising it, getting up on the toes, or lowering it, gaining
potential energy by compressing inner springs. By a clever shifting of mass, (an internal
operation), the external acceleration forces of gravity can be recruited and increase load can be
placed over one limb, compressing the floor bit more with the mass times the acceleration
forces of gravity. The floor pushes back, compressing out internal springs with equal vigor
{Roberts 2011} and the first step ensues as the weight is off the loaded limb allowing the bony
spring to release its potential energy . Subsequent steps follow with a smoother version of a
duck waddle, shifting the center of mass to take advantage of the gravity created kickback from
the floor. This refined duck waddle version of walking is the application of the long accepted
spring mass model for running, {Blickhan 1989}{Geyer 2006}.
The “six determents of gait” and the “inverted pendulum” models for walking {Kuo 2007} do not
model the all important first step as there seems to be no recognition that an external force is
necessary to move a body at rest. The internal muscle forces main function seems to be to
reconfigure the body shape and tension the system so as to then marshal outside forces to act
on it. The outside force is either gravity or the energy stored in the internal body springs as
of 2 9
DRAFT
DRAFT
02 Jan 2017
potential energy, put there by the Krebs cycle which converts outside energy to potential internal
energy, as springs can only return energy put there by an external force. Whether recognized
or ignored, a first step always involved a weight shift and that weight shift will load the body’s
inner springs. The most efficient use of that stored energy is to assist or replace the inner body
springs to minimize the body energy requirements and lessen the metabolic costs. A “push off”,
using the internal reshaping of the body by shortening or lengthening muscles actively pushing
against the ground requires a higher metabolic energy expenditure than a ‘bounce off” when
the body just bounced from the ground using the potential energy garnered from the GRF and
the muscles were used merely to reconfigure the body and shift its center of mass. Even a
push off is an enlistment of external forces, gravity, as it requires lowering the body center of
mass (COM), which gains potential energy.
Spring-mass Model
As already noted, springs can only return energy previously loaded by an external force, they
cannot produce mechanical energy on their own. The spring mass model for running envisions
the body as a pogo stick like structure, bouncing along using an interchange of potential
gravitational energy fed into the body on from the ground reaction and converting it to kinetic
energy for body motion. Alexander and Vernon {Alexander 1975} estimate that in some
animals, 70% of the energy during landing can then be used for take off. Blickhan states that
“the animal’s musculoskeletal system can be considered as an actively-driven, nonlinear,
multicomponent spring-mass system” {Blickhan 1989}. Alexander and Vernon attribute most of
the energy storage to muscle stretch, but physical laws dictate that when parallel elastic
materials are loaded it is the stiffer material that absorbs the greatest amount of kinetic energy
and converts it to potential energy within the stiff structure [Fig. 1] {Collins 2003}. It is, therefore,
axiomatic that the bone is the main energy storing device of the compressed contact limb. Bone
can be as hard as aluminum silicate but much more resistant to fracture. It might be compared
to an ash ax handle, stiff but springy. (The biblical Samson used the resilient jawbone of a
recently killed donkey as an effective club to kill a thousand Philistines {Bible
NewInternationalVersion 1973}).
The stored potential energy in bone can be dissipated as heat and be wasted in producing
sweat, or it can be utilized my the locomotor system to produce movement. The stiff bone
springs can shorten very little and that small motion would need to efficiently convert to a large
movement in a complaint limb {Geyer 2006}. How that is done is well described by Cleland,
{Cleland 1867}, and Lombard, {Lombard 1903}, who discuss mechanisms in which small
movements in the “short” muscles, (muscles passing over only one joint), can produce large
limb movements. Cleland shows that the same or similar organization of bone muscle and
ligaments are in humans, horses, and birds and Lombard describes it in a frog. Both authors
assume the that the action of “long” muscles, (muscles that span more than one joint), function
continuously, isometrically, and as adjustable tension ligaments. (Although Cleland and
Lombard did not use the physics terminology that can be ascribed to the linkage mechanisms,
of 3 9
DRAFT
DRAFT
02 Jan 2017
possibly because it was still an emerging concept amongst engineers ,{Reuleaux 1876}) , they
were clearly defining the locomotor system as operating as closed kinematic chains (CKC)
(Levin et al 2017). Energy in bones would pass to the contiguous ligaments and, somewhat
analogous to the bullet-gun recoil, a small movement in the bone can materialize as increased
tension in a ligament that, in turn, operating through a CKC , manifests as larger movements in
the more compliant soft tissues. These long muscles apparently perform best if they remain
isotonic, or nearly so, {Alexander 1977} {Biewener 1998} {Roberts 2011} and muscles can act
as ligaments. {Cleland 1867} As the spring action is occurring at multiple levels {Roberts 2011} it
is not difficult to visualize a chain of events that would link the bony springs to the taut
ligamentous system and into the muscles and tendons. It then becomes the potential energy
stored in the bone that powers the bone-muscle-ligament complex.
With the spring-mass model {Geyer 2006} supplanting the inverted pendulum model for walking
and running and integrating it into what has been know for over a century {Cleland 1867}
{Lombard 1903} about how muscles function in a coordinated CKC, we can develop a model
that brings gravitational external forces into the body and distributes them to efficiently mobilize
a body at rest and energize it to perform work in the most energy efficient manner.
Walking
As discussed above, The initial step is a weight shift to one leg and a recoil from the potential
energy stored in the bones and elastic soft tissues. As soft issues including the interstitial fluids
are nonlinear, it may be difficult to know when they are ‘stiff’ or compliant and just how much
bounce you can get from them {Noel 2017}, but we do know that bones, with a Young’s modulus
of cortical bone measured ultrasonically and mechanically was 20.7 GPa (S.D. 1.9) and 18.6
GPa , {Rho 1993}, are stiff, elastic, and will spring back went loaded. Adhering to the energy
conservation concept, the muscles and ligaments would be most energy efficient if they remain
isometric and isotonic. Internal forces would reconfigure the body thrusting the free limb forward
and shifting the center of mass, and this could be efficiently accomplished by utilizing the CKC
mechanisms as described by Cleland and Lombard [Fig. 2] . Walking would be a controlled
movement emanating from the central core out {Gracovetsky 1988} and maximizing the use of
the the potential energy garnered from the elastic recoil generated by the GRF. Angular changes
at multiple joints would be part of a coordinated CKC that could be controlled by a single
muscle or ligament within the CKC.
Energy Storage
The accepted wisdom is that muscles are our motors. That may be true for internal body
movements, but external movements may have adopted a different strategy. Wolff’s Law [Wolff
1889] and Davis’ Law [ Davis 1867] tell us that anatomy is a force diagram, the stiffer and
denser tissues at re those subject to the most forces. It becomes obvious that the mid shaft of
bones like the femur and humerus take the most compression forces and the tough ligaments,
such as those enveloping the pelvic girdle, cruciate ligaments of the knee, the Y ligament of the
hip, are resisting the greatest tension. As stiff structures in parallel with more malleable and less
of 4 9
DRAFT
DRAFT
02 Jan 2017
springy structures store more energy, then they will become the main source of the kinetic
energy that drives the body. If the body is handling the kinetic energy through pantograph-like
closed kinematic chains, {Levin et al 2017} then small movements at the source may generate
large movements and great speed at the interface with the external world.The tough pelvic
ligaments and the small amount of movement at the sacroiliac joints may be the force that
powers the spinal engine {Gracovetsky 1988}.
Ground Reaction Force
A pogo stick would slide out from under if it did not strike the ground with a normal (right angle)
force. Forward movement on a pogo stick is a factor of mid air weight shift, not angular forces
generated at ground contact. Efficient walking should mimic pogo stick/spring mass movement.
Foot contact at other than normal would generate underfoot shear that would waste energy. To
conserve energy, foot strike should be normal to the ground with all forces in and out of the
earth, not with angular forces that would generate shear. “Push-off”, actively accelerating stored
potential energy so they energize the ground to push back, requires energy expenditure that
the body would need to restore, so efficient walking would use that technique sparingly. A simple
weight shift at heel strike on the forward foot would require minimal internal forces and be the
most energy efficient. An energy efficient spring mass model for walking would use the energy
interchange between the outside gravity forces and the body mass to do then most work and
save the inside energy forces to reconfigure the body to take as advantage of the potential
energy garnered from the interchange with earth. At heal strike of the forward foot, weight shift
and body reconfiguring would “liftoff”, (an internal reconfiguring ), rather than “push-off” the
trailing limb with an external force pushing against the limb [Fig. 3]. It would be the internal
spring of the trailing limb contracting while the springs in the forward limb are expanding. Energy
dissipating shock absorbing footwear would waste energy, so shoes should protect the sole of
the foot from injury, but transmit forces without dampening them.
Conclusion
The spring-mass model appears to be a workable model for walking and, by inference, other
activities that require interchange of forces between the living body and the external world.
Organisms should be recognized as closed structural systems and that the interaction between
closed structural systems are subject to Newtonian Laws of Motion. For a body at rest, an
external force is required and movement in a spring-mass model requires an external source of
energy, usually gravity, to keep it active. An enduring rule in biology is that an organism is
always attempting to minimize energy expenditures and any modeling using spring-mass
concepts must take this into account. Using the elastic energy created in bone by its interaction
with earth would maximize the efficiency of the system interactions and seem a logical avenue
to explore when modeling biological activity of any sort.This paper expands on the spring-mass
model proposed by Alexander {Alexander 1976}, by updating the physics to conform to
Newtonian Laws of Motion, and integrates CKC mechanics that are consistent with anatomical
of 5 9
DRAFT
DRAFT
02 Jan 2017
observations recognized over a century ago,{Cleland 1867} {Lombard 1903} and recently
updated, {Levin et al 2017}.
of 6 9
DRAFT
greater load.
DRAFT
02 Jan 2017
 "7
of 7 9
DRAFT
smLevin 2008
Figure 3. Weight shift about to occur at heel strike. Note - weight is still on the rear
foot and Center of Mass is shifting toward the forward foot. At heel strike the trailing
foot is lifted.
Figure 2. Spring mass walking using energy storage of bone.
DRAFT
02 Jan 2017
References
Alexander, RMcn. "Mechanics of Bipedal Locomotion." Perspectives in experimental
biology 1 (1976): 493-504.
Blickhan, Reinhard. "The Spring-mass Model for Running and Hopping." Journal of
biomechanics 22, no. 11-12 (1989): 1217-1227.
Cleland, John. "On the Actions of Muscles Passing Over More Than One Joint." Journal
of anatomy and physiology 1, no. 1 (1867): 85.
Collins, Jack A, and David B Dooner. Mechanical Design of Machine Elements and
Machines: A Failure Prevention Perspective. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 2003.
Geyer, Hartmut, Andre Seyfarth, and Reinhard Blickhan. "Compliant Leg Behaviour
Explains Basic Dynamics of Walking and Running." Proceedings. Biological sciences
273, no. 1603 (2006): doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3637.
Gracovetsky, Serge. The Spinal Engine. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988.
Kuo, Arthur D. "The Six Determinants of Gait and the Inverted Pendulum Analogy: A
Dynamic Walking Perspective." Human movement science 26, no. 4 (2007):
617-656.
Levin, Stephen, Susan Lowell de Solórzano, and Graham Scarr. "The Significance of
Closed Kinematic Chains to Biological Movement and Dynamic Stability." Journal of
bodywork and movement therapies (2017).
Lombard, W P. "The Tendon Action and Leverage of Two-joint Muscles of the Hind Leg
of the Frog, with Special Reference to the Spring Movement." Contributions to
medical research. Wahr, Ann Arbor (1903): 280-301.
Noel, Alexis C, Hao-Yuan Guo, Mark Mandica, and David L Hu. "Frogs Use a Viscoelastic
Tongue and Non-Newtonian Saliva to Catch Prey." Journal of The Royal Society
Interface 14, no. 127 (2017): 20160764.
Reuleaux, F. The Kinematics of Machinery: Outlines of a Theory of Machines.
Macmillan, 1876.
Rho, J Y, R B Ashman, and C H Turner. "Young's Modulus of Trabecular and Cortical
Bone Material: Ultrasonic and Microtensile Measurements." Journal of
biomechanics 26, no. 2 (1993): 111-9.
Roberts, T. J., and E. Azizi. "Flexible Mechanisms: The Diverse Roles of Biological
Springs in Vertebrate Movement." Journal of Experimental Biology 214, no. 3
(2011): doi:10.1242/jeb.038588.
Wolff, J. , Wessinghage, D. Das Gesetz Der Transformation Der Knochen. Berlin: Hirschwald,
1892.
of 8 9
DRAFT
DRAFT
02 Jan 2017
of 9 9
DRAFT
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Closed kinematic chains (CKCs) are widely used in mechanical engineering because they provide a simple and efficient mechanism with multiple applications, but they are much less appreciated in living tissues. Biomechanical research has been dominated by the use of lever models and their kinematic analysis, which has largely ignored the geometric organization of these ubiquitous and evolutionary-conserved CKC systems, yet the latter contribute substantially to our understanding of biological motion. Closed-chain kinematics couple multiple parts into continuous mechanical loops that allow the structure itself to regulate complex movements, and are described in a wide variety of different organisms, including humans. In a biological context, CKCs are modular units nested within others at multiple size scales as part of an integrated movement system that extends throughout the organism and can act in synergy with the nervous system, where present. They provide an energy-efficient mechanism that enables multiple mechanical functions to be optimized during embryological development and increases evolutionary diversity. 2
Article
Full-text available
Frogs can capture insects, mice and even birds using only their tongue, with a speed and versatility unmatched in the world of synthetic materials. How can the frog tongue be so sticky? In this combined experimental and theoretical study, we perform a series of high-speed films, material tests on the tongue, and rheological tests of the frog saliva. We show that the tongue's unique stickiness results from a combination of a soft, viscoelastic tongue coupled with non-Newtonian saliva. The tongue acts like a car's shock absorber during insect capture, absorbing energy and so preventing separation from the insect. The shear-thinning saliva spreads over the insect during impact, grips it firmly during tongue retraction, and slides off during swallowing. This combination of properties gives the tongue 50 times greater work of adhesion than known synthetic polymer materials such as the sticky-hand toy. These principles may inspire the design of reversible adhesives for high-speed application.
Article
Full-text available
The muscles that power vertebrate locomotion are associated with springy tissues, both within muscle and in connective tissue elements such as tendons. These springs share in common the same simple action: they stretch and store elastic strain energy when force is applied to them and recoil to release energy when force decays. Although this elastic action is simple, it serves a diverse set of functions, including metabolic energy conservation, amplification of muscle power output, attenuation of muscle power input, and rapid mechanical feedback that may aid in stability. In recent years, our understanding of the mechanisms and importance of biological springs in locomotion has advanced significantly, and it has been demonstrated that elastic mechanisms are essential for the effective function of the muscle motors that power movement. Here, we review some recent advances in our understanding of elastic mechanisms, with an emphasis on two proposed organizing principles. First, we review the evidence that the various functions of biological springs allow the locomotor system to operate beyond the bounds of intrinsic muscle properties, including metabolic and mechanical characteristics, as well as motor control processes. Second, we propose that an energy-based framework is useful for interpreting the diverse functions of series-elastic springs. In this framework, the direction and timing of the flow of energy between the body, the elastic element and the contracting muscle determine the function served by the elastic mechanism (e.g. energy conservation vs power amplification). We also review recent work demonstrating that structures such as tendons remodel more actively and behave more dynamically than previously assumed.
Article
A simple spring-mass model consisting of a massless spring attached to a point mass describes the interdependency of mechanical parameters characterizing running and hopping of humans as a function of speed. The bouncing mechanism itself results in a confinement of the free parameter space where solutions can be found. In particular, bouncing frequency and vertical displacement are closely related. Only a few parameters, such as the vector of the specific landing velocity and the specific leg length, are sufficient to determine the point of operation of the system. There are more physiological constraints than independent parameters. As constraints limit the parameter space where hopping is possible, they must be tuned to each other in order to allow for hopping at all. Within the range of physiologically possible hopping frequencies, a human hopper selects a frequency where the largest amount of energy can be delivered and still be stored elastically. During running and hopping animals use flat angles of the landing velocity resulting in maximum contact length. In this situation ground reaction force is proportional to specific contact time and total displacement is proportional to the square of the step duration. Contact time and hopping frequency are not simply determined by the natural frequency of the spring-mass system, but are influenced largely by the vector of the landing velocity. Differences in the aerial phase or in the angle of the landing velocity result in the different kinematic and dynamic patterns observed during running and hopping. Despite these differences, the model predicts the mass specific energy fluctuations of the center of mass per distance to be similar for runners and hoppers and similar to empirical data obtained for animals of various size.
Article
An ultrasonic technique and microtensile testing were used to determine the Young's modulus of individual trabeculae and micro-specimens of cortical bone cut to similar size as individual trabeculae. The average trabecular Young's modulus measured ultrasonically and mechanically was 14.8 GPa (S.D. 1.4) and 10.4 (S.D. 3.5) and the average Young's modulus of microspecimens of cortical bone measured ultrasonically and mechanically was 20.7 GPa (S.D. 1.9) and 18.6 GPa (S.D. 3.5). With either testing technique the mean trabecular Young's modulus was found to be significantly less than that of cortical bone (p < 0.0001). However, the specimens were dried before microtensile testing so Young's modulus values may have been greater than those of trabeculae in vivo. Using Young's modulus measurements obtained from 450 cubes of cancellous bone and 256 cubes of cortical bone, Wolff's hypothesis that cortical bone is simply dense cancellous bone was tested. A multiple regression analysis that controlled for group membership showed that Young's modulus of cortical bone cannot be extrapolated from the Young's modulus vs density relationship for cancellous bone, yet the Young's modulus of trabeculae can be predicted by extrapolation from the relationship between Young's modulus vs density of the cancellous bone. These results suggest that when considered mechanically, cortical and trabecular bone are not the same material.