European Journal of Scientific Research ISSN 1450-216X Vol.31 No.4 (2009), pp.500-509 EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2009 http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.

htm

A Model for Two-Link Kinematic Chain of Lower Limb Using Kanes Method from a Jumping Smash Activity
Fazrolrozi School of Mathematical Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia E-mail: fazrol86@gmail.com Tel: +603-89213244; Fax: +603-89254519 Azmin Sham Rambely School of Mathematical Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia E-mail: asr@ukm.my Tel: +603-89213244; Fax: +603-89254519 Abstract A biomechanics model for two-link kinematics chain of lower limb during jumping smash activity was developed using Kanes method. A world class male badminton player, with 1.80 m in height and weighs 80 kilograms was chosen as a subject in this study. Video data was collected during the Thomas/Uber Cup 2000. A Peak-Motus Software was used to digitize the data. Results showed that torques produced at the ankle joint were higher than those at the knee joint. It was found that the profesional player adopts a one-foot technique while taking-off and jumping during a smash performance to attain best shuttle velocity and to minimize the possible injury during landing. Keywords: Lower limb, Kanes method, jumping smash, badminton

1. Introduction
A three-dimensional computer modeling and simulation is a useful approach in the field of biomechanics. Using this approach, a substantial portion of human movements can be assumed to be two-dimensional with only minor contributions of the third dimensional component (Nagano et al., 2004). One of the methods that can be used in computer modeling and simulation in the field of biomechanics is Kanes Method. Many studies have used Kanes method, primarily in robotic researches (Gillespie, 2003; Nagano et al., 2004), while a few researches were done in medical (Glaser et al., 2007), and sports fields (Ariff and Rambely, 2008; Hummel and Hubbard, 2001). In this paper, a jumping activity performs in a badminton smash is discussed. A lot of biomechanical studies relating to jumping, either vertical jumping (for example, high jump and counter movement jumping) or horizontal jumping (long jump) (Bobbert and van Soest, 1994; Linthorne et al., 2002; Hatze, 1981a; and Pandy et al., 1990. In vertical jumping, researchers interested in the contribution of the human lower limb with height of jump (Bobbert and van Soest, 1994) and parameters that can guarantee the height performance (Greg and Yeadon, 2000), whilst in the long jump activity, researchers look at the jumping performance, such as optimal take-off angle (Less et al,

A Model for Two-Link Kinematic Chain of Lower Limb Using Kanes Method from a Jumping Smash Activity

501

2000; Linthorne, 2002), run speed (Bridgett et al., 2002; Hay, 1993) and jump techniques (Hay et al, 1986). Rambely and Wan Abas (2007) discussed a model for impact forces produced during landing from a jumping smash activity using Newton-Euler equation to represent the lower limb of a human body. Up to date, there is no research reported discussing a model of the lower limb segment with application to jumping smash in badminton. Thus a model of two-link kinematic chain of lower limb is constructed using Kanes method (Figure 1). Kanes method is a vector-based approach which used vector cross and dot products to determine velocities and acceleration rather than calculus. It creates auxiliary quantities called partial angular velocities and partial velocities, and uses them to form dot product with the forces and torques acting from external and inertial forces. The dot products form quantities called the generalized active forces and the generalized inertia forces, which are the simplified forms of the forces and moments used to write the dynamic equation of motion (Kane and Levinson, 1986).

2. Research Method
Video data were collected on badminton games during the Thomas/Uber Cup 2000 competition held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from 11 May to 21 May 2000. A world class male badminton player, who is 1.80 m in height and weighs 80 kilograms was chosen to be the subject for this study. There were eight trials involved and each trial consisted of, on average, 60 frames starting from the action of getting ready to the landing position after the smashing stroke. The recording system consisted of six sets of 50 Hz shuttered CCTV cameras (WV-CP450/WVCP454 Panasonic) with color S-video, genlock and 6x zoom capabilities, 6 time-code generators (Norita SR-50), six 9-system portable colour televisions (CA688 Fumiyama), and six Peak-computerized and controlled VCR (NV-SD570AM Panasonic). For calibration, the cameras captured a reference structure (calibration frame) with 25 markers of known coordinates in space encompassing the whole court. The camera were directly genlocked for video to provide shutter synchronization and identical frame rates. A Peak Motus 2000 software was used to digitized the trial.

3. Mathematical Modeling for Two Segments

3.1. Assumption A model of the lower extremities used in this study is a branching of 2-link kinematic chain (Fig 1). We described the dynamics of this model in mathematical terms, making the following assumptions: (1) The problem can be solved in two dimensions (sagital plane); (2) The model consists of two rigid segments (two degrees of freedom). The first segment is the shank (segment A) and the second corresponds to the thigh (segment B); (3) Each segment has a length, lA and lB. The width of the segment (the bone) is assumed to be very small compared to the other geometrical measures, so the value can be neglected; (4) There is no influence of the muscles; (5) The movements of interest are the take-off and landing phases from an activity of jumping and landing during a smash motion; (6) The movements of the two segments are illustrated as the movements of two simple pendulums; (7) The first and second links are connected by frictionless spherical joints; (8) The end point is considered free; (9) The lengths lA and lB, are rigid. For this model the lengths are, lA (rigid) = 0.435 meter (shank) and lB (rigid) = 0.410 meter (thigh), which represent a person with height 1.8 meter and weight 74 kg [20]; (10) Moments of inertia, IA and IB, are known by calculation; (11) The joints are assumed to be frictionless and (12) The symbols used in this model are: r N A R position of A in reference frame N N rA angular velocities of body A (rad/sec)

502
N
N rA v N rA a

Fazrolrozi and Azmin Sham Rambely

angular acceleration of body A (rad/sec2) linear velocities of body A (m/sec) linear acceleration of body A ( m/sec2) angle of the body (rad) first derivative of qi (rad/sec) second derivative of qi (rad/sec2) torque applied by body N on A (kg.m/sec2) inertial forces of A ( kg.m/sec2) generalized active forces (kg.m/sec2) generalized inertia forces (kg.m/sec2)

N/ A
IA Fi Fi *

qi &i q &i q

Figure 1: A Model of Two Segments of Shank (A) and Thigh (B) With Reference Frame N

3.2. Direction Cosines It is much easier to describe the kinematics of the system using local reference frames affixed to a segment. We can relate the reference frames N, A and B by creating the direction cosines,
Table 1: Direction Cosines for Position A in Reference N

A Model for Two-Link Kinematic Chain of Lower Limb Using Kanes Method from a Jumping Smash Activity
Table 2: Direction Cosines for Position B in Reference A

503

Table 3:

Direction Cosines for Position B in Reference N

The component vectors of reference frame A are represented by three mutually orthogonal unit ) ) ) vectors with corresponding lower case letter, a1 ,a2 ,a3 . Simply stated, one can express any vector in ) terms of the component vectors of N, A and B using this tables. For example, the unit vector n2 may be equivalently expressed in terms of components in the A reference frame as, ) ) ) n2 = sin ( q1 ) a1 + cos ( q1 ) a2 (1) 3.3. Velocities and Acceleration The angular velocities of segments A and B with respect to reference frame N are determined to be, ) N rA &1a3 =q (2) ) N rB &1 + q &2 ) b3 = (q (3) Likewise, the angular acceleration are, ) N rA &&1a3 =q (4) ) N rB &&1 + q &&2 ) b3 = (q (5) Linear velocities and linear acceleration ) N r A* &1 a 2 v = Aq (6) ) N r Bo & v = l A q1 a2 (7) ) ) N r B* &1a2 + B ( q &1 + q &2 ) b2 v = lAq (8) ) ) N r Co &1a2 + lB ( q &1 + q &2 ) b2 v = lAq (9) The linear acceleration are, ) N r A* 2) &1 &&1 a2 a = Aq a1 + A q (10)
N

r 2 ) ) 2) &1 &&1a2 B ( q &1 + q &2 ) b1 a B* = l A q a1 + l A q ) &&1 + q &&2 ) b2 + B ( q

(11)

504 3.4. Partial Angular Velocities and Partial Velocities

Fazrolrozi and Azmin Sham Rambely

In Kanes approach, quantities called partial angular velocities and partial velocity vectors must be generated directly from angular velocity expressions and velocity expressions. For example, the angular velocity of segment A with respect to reference frame N has already been given in equation (2), and can be factored into the following form, r ) N rA = ( a3 ) u1 + 0 u2 (12) u1 is known as the first generalized speed of the system, and u 2 is called the second generalized speed. The first partial angular velocity of segment A in reference N is the term in parentheses that N r A multiplies u1 in the expression for 1 , and is denoted as ) N r A 1 = a3 (13) Another partial angular velocity is, r N r A 2 = 0 (14)

( )

Partial angular velocity for another segment are, ) ) N rB = b3 u1 + b3 u2 ) r N r B 1 = N 2 B = b3

( )

( )

(15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

The partial velocity vectors are determined just as easily as the partial angular velocity, r ) N r A* v = ( A a2 ) u1 + 0 u2 ) N r A* v1 = A a2 r N r A* v2 = 0 ) ) ) N r B* v = l A a2 + B b2 u1 + B b2 u2 ) ) N r B* v1 = l A a2 + B b2 ) N r B* v2 = B b2 ) ) ) N r Co v = l A a2 + lB b2 u1 + lB b2 u2 ) ) N r Co v1 = l A a2 + lB b2 ) N r Co v2 = lB b2 It turns out that by using Kanes method there is no need to compute partial velocities joints (points Ao, Bo, and Co) because the joint interaction forces are noncontributory.

( )
)

( )

at the

3.5. Generalize Active Forces and Generalized Inertia Forces Generalized active forces are then formulated for the system A and B, considered together as a whole. To form them, vectors dot products between the partial velocities of the points and the forces acting at those points are computed and added together. Additionally, dot products between partial angular velocities and torques are added and summed together with the previous result. For instance, the first and second generalized active forces are formulated by performing the following dot products, r r r ) ) F1 = ( N v1 A* . mA gn2 ) + ( N v1 B* . mB gn2 ) + ( N v1Co .F ) r r + N 1 A ( N / A A/ B ) + N 1B A/ B (21)

A Model for Two-Link Kinematic Chain of Lower Limb Using Kanes Method from a Jumping Smash Activity
r r ) ) F2 = ( N v2 A* . mA gn2 ) + ( N v2 B* . mB gn2 ) + r r + N 2 A ( N / A A/ B ) + N 2 B A/ B .

505 (22)

r v2 Co .F

After computing the generalized active forces, the generalized inertia forces are calculated next. These are composed of the dot products between the partial velocities of the mass centers and the inertial forces there, as well as the dot products between the partial angular velocities and the inertial torques. The first and second generalized inertia forces are formulated as, r r r r F1* = ( N v1 A* . m A N a A* ) + ( N v1 B* . mB N a B* ) r r r r + N 1 A ( I A* N A ) + N 1 B ( I B* N B ) (23) N r A* N r A* N r B* N r B* F2* = ( v2 . m A a ) + ( v2 . mB a ) r r r r + N 2 A ( I A* N A ) + N 2 B ( I B* N B ) (24) 3.6. Dynamics Equations of Motion Once the generalized active forces and generalized inertia forces are computed, the dynamic equations of motion are obtained simply by adding them together, F1 + F1* = 0 (25) (26) &i and q &&i ( i =1,2 ) . Typically, the These coupled equations describe the relationship between qi ,q equations are solved simultaneously to obtain the accelerations as functions of angular positions and angular speeds (Yamaguchi, 2006). These equations can be written in matrix-vector form,
F2 + F2* = 0

r r r r && MQ = G + E + T

(27)

where

2 2 2 2 A + lA mA + mB ( B mB + IB* ) + IA* + IB* B M = 2 2 + + m I m I B B B* B B B*

(28) (29) (30) (31)

r q && && Q= 1 &&2 q

r cosq1 Acosq1 Bcos ( q1 + q2 ) mA g G= A 0 Acosq1 Bcos ( q1 + q2 ) mB g r f l sin( q1) f1lBsin( q1 +q2 ) + f2lAcos( q1) + f2lBcos( q1 +q2 ) E = 1 A f1lBsin( q1 +q2 ) + f2lBcos( q1 +q2 ) ) ) a3 ( N A A B ) + b3 A B T = ) b3 A B

) ( )

(32)

To perform an inverse analysis, equation (32) is arranged as, (33) which clearly expresses the output torques as a function of the trajectory dependent terms grouped on the right hand side of the equation.

r r r r && T = MQ G + E

506

Fazrolrozi and Azmin Sham Rambely

4. Result and Discussion

Table 4 shows the anthropometric and kinematic data produced based on anatomical location of markers and anthropometric data given by Winter (1979). The anatomical position is based on a body of 1.8 m height and the kinematic data is based on a body with mass 74 kg.
Table 4: Anthropometric Data, Kinematic Data and Moment Produced from The Calculation of Mass of A Subjects.
Anthropometric Data Length of shank lA Length of thigh lB Length of shank from ankle to cg, A Length of thigh from knee to cg, B Segment Length proximal distal Segment weight/Total segment weight shank Segment weight/Total segment weight thigh Radius of gyration for shank cg Radius of gyration for thigh cg Distance from mass center to knee Distance from mass center to hip Distance of shank at cg Distance of thigh at cg Kinematic Data Weight Mass first segment mA Mass second segment mB Moment of inertia of shank IA Moment of inertia of shank IB Moment of inertia at cg of shank IA* Moment of inertia at cg of thigh IB* 75 kg 3.488 kg 7.500 kgm2 0.060 kgm2 0.131 kgm2 0.020 kgm2 0.042 kgm2 0.435m 0.410m 0.247m 0.232m 0.567 0.433 0.047 0.100 0.302 0.323 0.131 0.132 0.075 0.075

The motion of the player during the smash stroke is shown in Fig 2 (Rambely and Wan Abas, 2007). The numbered points represent the shuttlecock and they are marked in accordance with the respective moving: getting into position (1), planting of foot (2), taking off (2-3), contact (5) and landing (8-9).
Figure 2: The motion of the smash stroke

The torque of the joints is obtained from the model developed above by using the kinematic data obtained from a world-class badminton player while performing a jumping badminton smash. In order to describe the rotational movement, three significant points are identified, which represent a point in the phases while a player performs a jumping smash activity, which are taking off, contact and landing.

A Model for Two-Link Kinematic Chain of Lower Limb Using Kanes Method from a Jumping Smash Activity

507

Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 5, and Fig 6 illustrate the changes of torques on the joints in each position for two trials. This helps to describe the movement of the subject while performing the smash stroke. The negative and positive signs of the torques represent the direction of the rotation as well as the movement. In both trial, right foot was firstly used for take off whereas left foot was firstly used for landing. Fig 3 and Fig 5 show that a significant change of torques of left foot occurred at planting foot phase until a moment before contact phase. This show that the left foot plays a role collecting and in the force transferring to the upper body part, so that a higher shuttle velocity can be produced. Furthermore, the ankle joint produces a higher torque value compare to torque of the knee joint. However, for the right foot, the change of torques occurred at contact phase until some times after landing phase (Fig 4 and Fig 6). By transferring a greater force to he other foot would alleviate a higher force during impact imposed on the landing foot. This is a pattern of motion that has been shown by professional badminton players in order to get an effective smash stroke and to minimize injury to the lower part of the body while landing from a jumping smash activity.
Figure 3: Torques (first trial smash activity) of joints at each segment from taking-off (18), contact during airborne (26) and landing position (31)

Figure 4: Torques (first trial smash activity) of joints at each segment from taking-off (18), contact during airborne (26) and landing position (31)

508

Fazrolrozi and Azmin Sham Rambely

Figure 5: Torques (second trial smash activity) of joints at each segment from taking-off (18), contact during airborne (26) and landing position (31)

Figure 6: Torques (second trial smash activity) of joints at each segment from taking-off (18), contact during airborne (26) and landing position (31)

5. Conclusion
A mathematical model is created to represent human movement. The model provides an easier analysis of movements. In investigating movement in sport using modelling and simulation. A model is used to represent the motion of a player. The results show that the profesional player adopts a one-foot technique while taking-off and jumping during a smash performance. Torques showed to be collected by the other foot to attain best shuttle velocity while transferring the torques to the other foot to minimize the possible injury during landing.

A Model for Two-Link Kinematic Chain of Lower Limb Using Kanes Method from a Jumping Smash Activity

509

References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] Ariff, F.H.M. and Rambely, A. S., 2008. Determination of torques at upper limb joints during jumping in badminton smash via Kanes Method, In Proceedings of XXVI International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports, pp. 73-76. Bobbert, M.F. and van Soest, A.J., 1994. Effects of muscle strengthening on vertical jump height: A simulation study, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 26, pp. 1012-1020. Bridgett, L.A., Galloway,M. and Linthorne, N.P., The effect of run-up speed on long jump performance, In: Gianikellis, K.E., 2002. 20th International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports, pp. 80-83, Universidad de Extremadura, Spain. Gillespie, B. R., 2003. Kanes equation for haptic display of multisegment systems, Hapticse, Vol.3. No.2. Glaser, D., Douglas A. D., Richard D. K. and Todd M. M., 2007. Clinical biomechanics award 2007: In vivo comparison of hip mechanics for minimally invasive versus traditional total hip arthroplasty, Journal of Clinical Biomechanics 23( 2), pp. 127-134. Greg, M.P. and Yeadon, M.R., 2000. The influence of touchdown parameters on the performance of a high jumper, Journal of Applied Biomechanics 16, pp. 367-378. Hatze, H.A., 1981a. comprehensive model for human motion simulation and its application to the take-off phase of the long jump, Journal of Biomechanics 14, pp. 135-142. Hay, J.G., 1993. Citius, altius, longius (faster, higher, longer): the biomechanics of jumping for distance, Journal of Biomechanics 26 (Suppl. 1), pp. 7-21. Hay, J.G., Miller, J.A. and Canterna, R.W., 1986. The techniques of elite male long jumpers, Journal of Biomechanics 19, pp. 855-866. Hummel, S.A. and Hubbard, M.A., 2001. Musculoskeletal Model for Backhand Frisbee Throws, 8th International Symposium on Computer Simulation in Biomechanics, The Politecnico di Milano,Milan Italy. Kane, T.R. and Levinson, D.A., 1986. Dynamics: Theory and Applications, McGraw-Hill, New York. Lees. A., Fowler, N. and Derby, D., 2000. Optimum take-off techniques and muscle design for long jump, Journal of Experimental Biology 203, pp. 741-750. Linthorne, N.P., Guzman, M.S. and Bridgett, L.A., 2002. The optimum takeoff angle in the long jump. In: Gianikellis, K.E., 20th International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports, pp. 126-129, Universidad de Extremadura, Spain. Nagano, A., Komura, T., Fukashiro, S. and Himeno, R., 2004. Force, work and power output of lower limb muscles during human maximal-effort countermovement jumping, Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 15, pp. 367376. Pandy, M.G., Zajac, F.E., Eunsup, S. and Levine, W.S., 1990. An optimum control model for maximum-height human jumping, Journal of Biomechanics, 23, pp. 1185-1198. Rambely, A. S. and Wan Abas, W. A. B., 2007. A Model of Impact Forces during Landing from a Jumping Smash Activity, In IFMBE Proceedings 15, pp. 163-166. Winter, D.A., 1979. Biomechanics of human movement, John Wiley and Sons, New York. Yamaguchi, G. T., 2006. Dynamic Modelling of Musculoskeletal Motion: A Vectorized Approach for Biomechanical Analysis in Three Dimensions, Springer, New York.