Sports Technology, August November 2012; 5(3 4): 120131

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Computer models offer new insights into the mechanics of rock climbing

SHAWN D. RUSSELL1, CHRISTOPHER A. ZIRKER1, & SILVIA S. BLEMKER1,2,3,4

Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA, 3Department of Radiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA and 4Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
2 1

Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:13 23 December 2012

(Received 7 April 2012; accepted 3 October 2012)

Abstract Three computer models of varying complexity were developed in order to investigate the kinematics, kinetics, muscle operating ranges, and energetics of rock climbing. First, inverse dynamic models were used to investigate the joint angles and torques used in climbing and to quantify the total mechanical work required for typical rock climbing. Climbing experience was found to have a signicant effect on the kinematics used in climbing; however, there were no signicant differences in mechanical work. Second, a musculoskeletal model of the whole body was developed, this model combined with the kinematic data was used to analyze the operating ranges of the upper and lower limb muscles during climbing. In general, the experienced climbers employed kinematic motions that corresponded to muscle bers used for climbing operating much closer to their optimum length than the kinematics of inexperienced climbers. Third, a forward dynamic model was developed to predict the metabolic goal of climbing. The results of this model suggest that an experienced climbing style minimizes the fatigue of muscles while an inexperienced climbing style minimizes the total joint torques generated.

Keywords: climbing, biomechanical modeling, work, efciency, optimum climbing strategies, inverse dynamics

Introduction Rock climbing poses unique demands on the human musculoskeletal system. In standard walking, the lower body is primarily responsible for locomotion and support; however, in climbing, both the upper body and lower body provide both locomotion and support. Climbing entails signicant motion in the vertical plane and is not primarily limited to the horizontal motion typically associated with walking (McIntyre, 1983). Climbing results in motion mechanics that are drastically different from those the body typically performs in everyday activities. These unique mechanics and energetics are currently poorly understood. An advanced understanding of climbing mechanics will elucidate new methods for training which will help decrease the loads during climbing, reducing the chance of injury; increase the

efciency of climbing, reducing the energy needed to climb; and offer a deeper understanding of human motor learning strategies and physical adaptation development for atypical motions. To date, research regarding the kinematics and dynamics of rock climbing has focused on analysis of the strategies the climbers use to maintain stability while holding a static posture during climbing. Marino and Kelly (1988) reported that as climbing slopes increased from 608 to 1208 (908 being vertical), the percentage of body weight supported by the upper body increased from approximately 20% to 40%. Others have investigated the dynamic changes in the support forces, applied through the hands and feet, when transitioning from a static quadrupedal state (four-limb support) to a static tripedal state (three-limb support) by removing a support foot (Quaine, Martin, & Blanchi, 1997a; Quaine &

Correspondence: S.D. Russell, Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, University of Virginia, 122 Engineers Way, P.O. Box 400746, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4746, USA. E-mail: sdr2n@virginia.edu ISSN 1934-6182 print/ISSN 1934-6190 online q 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19346182.2012.749831

Mechanics of rock climbing Martin, 1999). Although these studies attempted to limit the center of mass (CoM) motion resulting in static trials, they found that to maintain balance, climbers began the transfer of reaction forces away from the limb to be removed prior to initiating the transfer from a quadruped to a triped state. Others have found similar balance strategies employed when varying wall slope (Noe, Quaine, & Martin, 2001) and for various optimal and suboptimal climbing postures (Quaine, Martin, & Blanchi, 1997b; Testa, Martin, & Debu, 1999). However, each of these methods limited the climber to static positions, and none have calculated the joint loads associated with the climbing moves. Previous work regarding the efciency of rock climbing has been focused on comparing the anthropometry and physiology of climbers and nonclimbers. This work has demonstrated that climbers are typically small in stature with elevated strength to body mass ratios (Grant, Hynes, Whittaker, & Aitchison, 1996; Watts, 2004). Aerobic power analysis has shown that climbers tend to have lower oxygen consumption compared with the mean endurance athlete (Booth, Marino, Hill, & Gwinn, 1999; Mermier, Janot, Parker, & Swan, 2000), suggesting that their aerobic tness level is consistent with one required for quick recovery from high intensity effort. Mermier, Robergs, McMinn, and Heyward (1997) found that oxygen consumption of elite rock climbers on moderate terrain is equivalent to running at 2.6 ms21. However, climbing is a stochastic activity with spurts of action interspersed with periods of resting/static support. It is, therefore, difcult to measure a steady-state VO2 consumption rate, and the reports of mean VO2 range widely from 18.6 to 43.8 ml(kgmin)21, for similar climbing conditions (Billat, 1995; Mermier et al., 1997; Watts, Daggett, Gallagher, & Wilkins, 2000). Although these measurements offer insight into individual climbers and their climbing strategies, it is difcult to apply those strategies to the general population due to the effects of individual conditioning, rest to climb ratio, and averaging. Computer models have the potential to offer insights into complex human motions. Previously, simple forward dynamics models with limited degrees of freedom have been used to demonstrate multiple complex properties of walking, including stability and control of joint angles (Garcia, Chatterjee, Ruina, & Coleman, 1998; Goswami, Espiau, & Thuilot, 1996; Morgan, Mochon, & Julian, 1982), and also the efciency of motion due to the distribution of joint torque (Kuo, 2002). In addition, more complex models are often used in both forward and inverse dynamic simulations of human movement. These inverse models have been used to quantify joint torques and forces, muscle mechanics and motor

121

Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:13 23 December 2012

control of human walking (Arnold, Ward, Lieber, & Delp, 2010), running (Edwards, Taylor, Rudolphi, Gillette, & Derrick, 2010), and jumping (Anderson & Pandy, 1999). However, these models have primarily focused on motions supported entirely by the lower extremity and were not developed to include the upper extremity as a part of the support and control of locomotion. In this paper, we describe our recent work using three computer models of climbing with varying complexity to answer a range of questions regarding the mechanics and energetics of climbing. The rst inverse dynamics model was developed to quantify the kinematic, kinetic, and energetic differences between experienced and inexperienced climbing motions. The second musculoskeletal model was used to evaluate how differences in these kinematic strategies affect muscle force-generating capacity. Finally, the third forward dynamic model was developed to investigate the energetic goals of differing strategies for rock climbing. Each of these models was created based on a set of human climbing motion capture experiments that made use of a custom climbing wall instrumented with six force plates.

Methods Human climbing experiments Twelve healthy participants participated in this study, including seven inexperienced climbers and ve experienced climbers, where experienced was dened as comfortable climbing 5.10 on the Yosemite Decimal System (5.10 YDS, VII-UIAA, or 20 Australia). The inexperienced climber group consisted of ve males and two females averaging 26.7 ^ 5.0 years of age, 177.1 ^ 5.7 cm in height, and 75.3 ^ 9.1 kg in mass. The experienced climber group included two males and three females averaging 29.8 ^ 8.6 years of age, 169.8 ^ 9.4 cm in height, and 62.0 ^ 9.4 kg in mass. All tests were conducted in the Motion Analysis and Motor Performance Laboratory at the University of Virginia. Participant consent was approved by the University of Virginias Human Investigation Committee and was obtained for all participants. Participants were given up to 20 min of free climbing time prior to data collection to acclimate themselves to the climbing wall. They were then instructed to climb the wall (approximately 35 cm steps) using their self-selected climbing strategy. Participants were instructed to ascend then descend the climbing wall three times per trial, pausing briey in a four-point stance when changing directions. Kinetic data were collected using a climbing wall instrumented with six custom force plates (Bertec,

122 S. D. Russell et al.

Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:13 23 December 2012

Figure 1. Experimental set-up used in data collection, including the instrumented climbing wall with typical grip placement.

Mechanics of rock climbing Columbus, OH, USA), each with seven possible grip-mounting locations (Figure 1). 3D kinematic data were collected using a six-camera Vicon Motion Analysis System (Oxford Metrics, Oxford, UK) at 120 Hz, and a modied full-body Plug in Gait marker set, 35 markers. At least three ascents were performed and measurements were averaged for each trial, with the participants moving from one four-point posture to another four-point posture. Analyzed data began at the initiation of movement from the lower grip set and ended when the climber reached a neutral posture on the upper grip set. Inverse dynamic model To quantify the kinematics and joint kinetics of climbing, a 3D, 17 segment, 16 joint, participantspecic model (Figure 2) was created for each participant in MSC.Adams, using the LifeMod plugin (Biomechanics Research Group, San Clemente,

123

Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:13 23 December 2012

o on M lo o C

CA, USA), from individual anthropometric data (age, weight, height, and gender). The 17 model segments included the following: head, neck, upper torso, central torso, lower torso, upper arms (2), lower arms (2), hands (2), upper legs (2), lower legs (2), and feet (2) (Figure 2). The segments physical properties were dened using the Generator of Body Data (GeBOD) database (Cheng, Obergefell, & Rizer, 1994). The 16 joints were each specied as a ball joint with three degrees of freedom; however, the elbow and wrist joints are reduced to two axis and the knee joints are reduced to only one axis. Development of this model in the MSC.Adams environment facilitated the application of external forces (wall contacts) from two sources: (1) direct application of experimentally measured forces (Bertec force plates) and (2) the predictive modeling of wall contact forces. Wall contact, from grasping and releasing climbing grips, was also modeled in the MSC.Adams environment. For simulations described in this study, model inputs were the measured marker positions exported from VICON to the LifeMod model and measured contact for data and position, and outputs based on inverse kinematic and dynamic models were joint angles, forces, and torques. From these parameters, we can calculate energetic parameters as described below. An advantage of this model over others (Willems, Cavagna, & Heglund, 1995) is that it facilitates the quantication of energetics down to the level of each joint degree of freedom. Total work, Wtot, is the sum of the external work Wext, work done to move the system CoM, and the internal work Wint, work done to move the body segments about the CoM: X W tot W int W ext jti Dui j; 1
i

W ext

X
i

jF j DS j j;

where ti is the torque at joint i, ui is the angle of joint i, Fj is the composite force applied to the wall in the jth cardinal direction, and Sj is the composite body CoM displacement in the jth cardinal direction. All mechanical work data presented in this study have been normalized by climber mass and the vertical distance traveled, J(kgm)21. Musculoskeletal model The second musculoskeletal model was similar to the rst in degrees of freedom and was developed in the Opensim environment. This full-body model (Figure 3) combines previously developed models of the upper extremity (Holzbaur, Murray, & Delp,

Figure 2. Three-dimensional inverse dynamics model utilized for inverse dynamic simulations and work calculations.

124 S. D. Russell et al. determine how chosen climbing kinematics may affect the amount of available muscle force being used in climbing and the amount of strength in reserve. This has obvious implications for injury prevention, training, and also may have implications on the efciency of force generation. Forward dynamic model A third, 2D sagittal plane, model with ve degrees of freedom was created using Adams/View (MSC.Software Corporation, Santa Ana, CA, USA) to mimic the

Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:13 23 December 2012

Figure 3. A full-body musculoskeletal model was used to determine muscle behavior during climbing.

2005) and lower extremity (Arnold et al., 2010). The combined model includes 112 independent muscles (54 in the lower extremity and 58 in the upper extremity). Muscles that cross only the wrist and nger joints were excluded from the upper extremity model to reduce computation time and simplify data analysis. Measured motion data were used as input for the inverse kinematic simulations, which resulted in muscle parameters for each movement pattern as the output. Of particular interest are the ber lengths of each muscle as the participants perform their climbing task. Muscle ber length is directly related to skeletal kinematics, and the maximum force generated by a muscle is a function of ber length (Zahalak & Motabarzadeh, 1997). This analysis allows one to

Figure 4. Forward dynamic climbing model created in Adams/View. Actuators (red arrows) and joints at contact points (blue arrows) are shown (Colour online).

Mechanics of rock climbing

125

Figure 5. Schematic detailing the kinematics of each climbing style over the course of a single climbing stride.

Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:13 23 December 2012

sagittal plane motion which occurs during the standing/pulling phase of climbing (Figure 4). This model capable of both inverse and forward dynamic simulations was developed to predict the joint torques required for optimum efciency of a desired climbing trajectory, given a specied cost function. The model consists of seven rigid bodies linked together by revolute joints. The seven bodies represent the foot, shank, thigh, torso/head, humerus, forearm, and hand while the joints between segments represent the ankle, knee, hip, shoulder, elbow, and wrist. The torso segment includes a rigidly attached circular body to represent the head and to maintain accurate distribution of mass between the segments. Each segment of the model is scaled based on the participant-specic anthropometry while the masses and (CoM) locations of each of the segments were chosen based on normalized values in the literature (Winter, 1990). For this model, two simplied (sagittal plane only) kinematic and CoM positioning strategies for the ascension phase (standing/pulling up) of climbing were analyzed (Figure 5). (1) Experienced style: Elbows extended, CoM further away from the wall. (2) Inexperienced style: Elbow bent, CoM close to the wall. Matlab-MSC.Adams co-simulation routines (Zirker, 2011) were used with this model to calculate the joint torques required to perform these movements. This was done using two solution methods: rst using measured wall reaction forces and inverse dynamics to calculate the actual joint moments used by the climber, and second using optimization routines for forward dynamic predictive simulations. The second solution method employed Matlab-based SQP

optimization algorithms to calculate the optimum joint torques required to reproduce the reference kinematics. For optimization, three cost functions that characterized the efciency of the climbing model in unique ways were implemented. The rst cost function was the sum of total mechanical work done by each joint, as described in the inverse dynamics model. The second cost function was the sum of the square of the joint torques (Tsqr). The third cost function was the sum of the square of the normalized joint torque (Tmax), where the torque developed by each muscle group is normalized by the maximum isometric joint torque. These values have been shown to be representative of the efciency of individual muscle groups to do work. The maximum isometric torques were found in the literature for the lower extremities (Arnold et al., 2010), shoulder (Holzbaur et al., 2005), elbow, and wrist (Holzbaur, Delp, Gold, & Murray, 2007). The trunk and wrist muscles were not included in the Tmax calculations. This was due to the limited data regarding maximum isometric torques related to our trunk joints, and the small values of wrist torque and associated noise. For comparison purposes, all results were normalized by the inverse dynamic solutions of an average climb. Total work is not dependent on the number of simulated time steps. However, Tsqr and Tmax values were dependent on the climbing duration, so these values were also normalized by the number of discretely simulated steps for each simulation. Statistics Repeated measures ANOVA were performed to determine any differences between the climbing styles. To quantify differences between performed

126 S. D. Russell et al. tasks, Students paired t-tests (two-tailed) were used. Data were considered signicant for p , 0.05. Results Motion capture measurements of climbing demonstrated that the joint kinematic trajectories varied greatly both between climbers and between trials for individual climbers. However, the general climbing patterns used were similar to those reported for ladder climbing (Armstrong, Young, Woolley, Ashton-Miller, & Kim, 2009; Hammer & Schmalz, 1992; McIntyre & Bates, 1982; McIntyre, 1983). These climbing patterns included diagonal and lateral gait, coordinated movement of the contralateral arm and leg, and the collateral arm and leg, respectively. Each climbing style had a temporal pattern of two beats, concurrent motion of limbs, or four beats, with slight delay between coordinated limb motions. In addition, we found some climbers employed a strategy not reported in ladder climbing. These strategies, leading limb climbing, employed four distinct movements (four beat motion) where the climbing gait was initiated with either, the reaching up with both hands followed by stepping up with both feet, or stepping up with both feet then reaching up with both hands. Generally the experienced group of climbers used a different kinematic strategy than the inexperienced climbers. Experienced climbers maintained a posture with a more extended elbow and exed knee compared to inexperienced climbers (Figure 6). These differences in climbing kinematics can be seen in the differing joint force trajectories of a typical climb from each group (Figure 7). The result of these kinematics is that, contrary to the common assumption that experienced climbers tend to keep their bodies close to the climbing surface to reduce loads, the experienced climbers climbed with their CoM farther from the wall compared to the inexperienced climbers (Figure 8). Climbing requires substantially more mechanical work than walking: climbing in our study typically required over 10 times more work than walking; total mechanical work for climbing was 18.0^ 2.2 J(kgm)21 compared to the total mechanical work for healthy walking which has been previously reported to be 1.0 2.0 J(kgm)21 (Mian, Thom, Ardigo, Narici, & Minetti, 2006; Russell, Bennett, Sheth, & Abel, 2011; Willems et al., 1995). Despite the different kinematic strategies employed by the experienced and inexperienced climbers, there were no signicant differences in the work done between the groups. Of the work done in climbing, Wext represented 62.2 ^ 6.3% of the total work, which is similar to normal walking where the mean contribution of Wext to Wtot is 55% (Willems et al., 1995). Further analysis showed the distribution of Wtot done by sections of the body was upper body 36.7 J(kgm)21, trunk 12.4 J(kgm)21, and lower

Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:13 23 December 2012

Figure 6. Comparison of a representative climbing stride, experienced (dark blue) and inexperienced (orange) climbers. As shown above, each climber stepped up with the left foot followed by the right, then stood/pulled up followed by reaching up with the left then the right hand. Joint angles (left) and torques (right) are shown for the ankle and knee joints (Colour online).

Mechanics of rock climbing

127

Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:13 23 December 2012

Figure 7. Kinematic differences between the experienced (dark blue) and inexperienced (orange) were more pronounced in the upper extremities. Differences between the elbow and knee, minimum, mean, and maximum, joint angles are shown. 08 represents joint neutral (normal posture in extension) (Colour online). *p , 0.05, **p , 0.01, and ***p , 0.001.

Figure 8. Distance of climbers CoM from the wall in normal climbing, experienced (dark blue) and inexperienced (orange) climbers. Minimum, mean, and maximum distances reported over one stride (Colour online). *p , 0.05, **p , 0.01, and ***p , 0.001.

body 50.9 J(kgm) 21, and experience had no signicant effect. Analysis of the musculoskeletal model demonstrated that the kinematic movement patterns resulted in differences in operating ranges of muscles during climbing, between the experienced and inexperienced climbers. The force generating capacity of a muscle ber is a function of the ber length (background of Figure 9) where optimum ber length corresponds to the length of maximum force generation (Zajac, 1989). Normalized ber lengths were found to vary between groups (Figure 9). Experienced climbers used climbing strategies that kept the operating ber lengths of the biceps brachii closer to their optimal ber lengths than the inexperienced climbers. Conversely, the inexperienced climbers used strategies in which the triceps brachii operated closer to its optimum ber length. Using the third model to explore which parameters climber might be trying to minimize, the efciency

128 S. D. Russell et al.

Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:13 23 December 2012

Figure 9. Minimum, mean, and maximum ber lengths of experienced (dark blue) and inexperienced (orange) climbers are identied by asterisks or circles depending on signicance of the differences between the two groups (Colour online). *p , 0.05, **p , 0.01, and ***p , 0.001.

measures, work, Tsqr, or Tmax. We found the relative efciency of each climbing style (Figure 5) varied depending on the cost function. Calculations from actual joint torques used in each of the two desired climbing trajectories showed that experienced climbing strategy (straight arms) was the most efcient for all efciency quantities (Figure 10). More interestingly, optimization of the joint torques

resulted in kinetics with increased efciency (decreased values of efciency quantities) for all simulations conducted except for the Tmax value for the experienced climbing strategy which remained nearly the same as the inverse dynamic calculation. This may indicate that Tmax is a quantity that experienced climbers are minimizing through training.

Figure 10. Total costs for inverse dynamic (measured) and optimized (simulated) joint torques for the experienced (dark blue) and inexperienced (orange) climbing styles. Note that the inverse dynamic Tmax for the experienced climbing style does not reduce with optimization (Colour online).

Mechanics of rock climbing Discussion The three models presented here provide a new paradigm for the analysis of the kinematics, kinetics, efciency, and control of dynamic rock climbing. Here, these models have been used to quantify differences between experienced and inexperienced climbers. The rst model showed that the experienced and inexperienced climbers used different joint kinematics at the elbow and knee when climbing. This resulted in differing CoM trajectories, but no difference in the total mechanical work done by each group. The second model depicts how the elbow kinematics employed by the experienced and inexperienced groups facilitate greater maximum force generation in the biceps brachii (elbow exion) and triceps brachii (elbow extension), respectively. Simulations from the third model show that climbers may use different physiologic goals when climbing, inexperienced climbers minimize the magnitude of force they develop in climbing, Tsqr, whereas experienced climbers minimize magnitude of force generated relative to their maximum force generating capacity, Tmax. Each model has been developed and implemented to further our knowledge about a unique aspect of climbing. Kinematic differences between groups lead to experienced climbers maintaining their CoM farther from the climbing surface than the inexperienced climbers (Figure 8). Zampagni, Brigodoi, Schena, Tosi, and Ivanenko (2011) reported similar differences between the CoM position of experienced and inexperienced climbers. This was unexpected as the generally accepted method for efcient climbing is to minimize the distance of the CoM to the wall, thus reducing the increased load due to the increased CoM induced moment. This may be due to the size of the grips used in these studies, both used large easy to hold grips allowing for the distribution of force across the entire hand; expert climbing routs often incorporate small grips where few and occasionally only one nger is used to support the climbers load. In these cases, the added load caused by an increased CoM couple may be the difference in a successful climb or a fall. In cases of climbing with reduced grip size, studies may nd that experienced climbers begin to move their CoM closer to the climbing surface. In addition, the kinematics used in climbing result in an energy-intensive method of locomotion. This is evident when the energy cost of climbing are compared to the energy required for typical bipedal walking on level ground (Mian et al., 2006; Russell et al., 2011; Willems et al., 1995). However, it is interesting that the total mechanical work done for experienced and inexperienced climbers was not different despite the varying kinematic approaches used by the two groups, and the qualitative

129

differences observation in their energy levels at the end of data collection. In climbing, the elbow contributes to the vertical motion in the upward direction by developing a exion moment. When overlaying the operating ranges of the normalized ber lengths of the biceps brachii (primary elbow exor), developed using the second model, on the normalized force length curve of muscle, it is apparent that the different kinematics used shifting the operating length of the muscle bers closer to optimal ber length for the experienced climbing group (Figure 9). The force length curve represents the maximum available force generation of the muscle at full activation. Muscles operating at or near the peak are able to generate much more force per activated ber than one operating below the peak (Murray, Buchanan, & Delp, 2000), which would theoretically result in a more metabolically efcient development of joint torque. Thus, although doing the same amount of work as the inexperienced climber, the experienced climber may employ climbing kinematics that put the muscles used in climbing closer to their optimum ber lengths, allowing them to do that work with more efciency and with more force available in reserve. It is generally accepted that when humans move we do so with an objective of reaching a destination or a goal while minimizing some quantity. Although many parameters are likely included in this minimized quantity, i.e., distance, metabolism, pain, boredom, and weather, we often simplify it to only include some measure of energetics, such as work, force generation Tsqr, or fatigue Tmax. Our simulations using the third model indicate that the experienced climbers employed a climbing strategy that minimized the energetic quantity of Tmax. Tmax represents the percentage of the total available muscle force used in climbing and has been related to muscle fatigue (Ackermann & van den Bogert, 2010). This would indicate that experienced climbers have learned that fatigue is the limiting factor when climbing. However, the inexperienced climbing strategy was most efcient when the Tsqr value was used as the cost function, indicating that the inexperienced climbers are not worried about fatigue as much as they are about the metabolic cost of generating muscle force (Umberger & Rubenson, 2011). When the results are combined, the three models presented here are capable of offering a broad picture of how successful climbing is achieved, and the role of experience in developing climbing style. However, the models in their current forms have limitations. The rst two models do not incorporate muscle cocontraction, the simultaneous contraction of agonist muscle pairs about a joint often employed to increase the stability of a joint often when learning new movements. The inclusion of co-contraction would

Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:13 23 December 2012

130 S. D. Russell et al. likely result in higher work numbers for all climbers, the current model reports the net work done at a joint while the actual work would include both the positive and negative work done by antagonist muscle. We hypothesize that inexperienced climbers would have a higher level of co-contraction, thus increasing the differences in work between groups. In the second model co-contraction may also result in changes in muscle length, co-contracting muscles would increase the net force on a muscle that may result in increased stretch of the muscle tendons and shortening of the muscle belly. Finally, the kinematics of the third model were xed while the joint torques were optimized based on a given cost function. Relaxing the joint kinematics constraints may allow the model to be useful for the prediction of better, reduced work, peak loads, reaction forces, etc., climbing modalities. The accuracy of Tmax results was limited by the use of published average muscle volumes. Previous work has shown that experienced climbers tend to have a smaller and more compact physique compared to inexperienced climbers that may manifest in the difference between muscle volumes in the two groups. This work provides a basis for comparison for any future climbing studies that analyze joint kinematics or make quantitative comparisons between experienced and inexperienced climbers. Future studies should investigate whether climbing kinematics in general have an effect on work done. In addition, the models and techniques developed here should be used to elucidate the differences between how and where (joint specic) the experienced and inexperienced climbers generate the work done in climbing. This would allow us to better tailor training regiments to increase the efciency of the climber, and more importantly it would allow us to understand the increased loads due to various climbing strategies, increasing our understanding of where and when injuries may occur. This may help to understand the overrepresentation of injuries to the upper body reported in sport climbers (Peters, 2001). We are currently incorporating MR imaging and climber-specic muscle volumes into the models to increase the delity of the effects of musculature on climbing movements. This forward dynamic model demonstrates that simple models can offer unique insights into human movement. This paper described the use of three simple cost functions; however, the model is developed to allow the addition of other more complex cost functions for optimization. In addition, the kinematics of this model were constrained as an input; however, these constraints can be removed to allow the model to optimize both joint torques and kinematics. Such simulations could offer even more information on how climbers choose their climbing strategies and how those choices change with experience. Conclusion Rock climbing is increasing in popularity both as a competitive sport and as an outdoor adventure activity. With this increase in popularity, little has been done to investigate the biomechanics of climbing. The energetics and mechanics of climbing are complicated. This paper demonstrates how models can provide new insights into the complexities of climbing mechanics and energetics, which would not be achievable through experiments/observation alone. These new insights can help us to better understand why we choose specic climbing kinematics. In addition, they may lead to new more efcient climbing and training strategies that minimize injury risk while maximizing climbing ability. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the staff at the Motion Analysis and Motor Performance Lab, KCRC, at the University of Virginia. This work was funded by the DARPA-DOD Z-Man Program. References
Ackermann, M., & van den Bogert, A. J. (2010). Optimality principles for model-based prediction of human gait. Journal of Biomechanics, 43, 10551060. Anderson, F. C., & Pandy, M. G. (1999). A dynamic optimization solution for vertical jumping in three dimensions. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering , 2, 201231. Armstrong, T. J., Young, J., Woolley, C., Ashton-Miller, J., & Kim, H. (2009). Biomechanical aspects of xed ladder climbing: Style, ladder tilt and carrying. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, 53, 935 939. Arnold, E., Ward, S., Lieber, R., & Delp, S. (2010). A model of the lower limb for analysis of human movement. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 38, 269279. Billat, V. (1995). Energy specicity of rock climbing and aerobic capacity in competitive sport rock climbers. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 35, 20. Booth, J., Marino, F., Hill, C., & Gwinn, T. (1999). Energy cost of sport rock climbing in elite performers. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 33, 14 18. Cheng, H., Obergefell, L., & Rizer, A. (1994). Generator of body data (GEBOD) manual. Dayton, OH: Systems Research Labs, Inc. Edwards, W. B., Taylor, D., Rudolphi, T. J., Gillette, J. C., & Derrick, T. R. (2010). Effects of running speed on a probabilistic stress fracture model. Clinical Biomechanics, 25, 372377. Garcia, M., Chatterjee, A., Ruina, A., & Coleman, M. (1998). The simplest walking model: Stability, complexity, and scaling. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 120, 281 288. Goswami, A., Espiau, B., & Thuilot, B. (1996). Compass-like bipedal robot part I: Stability and bifurcation of passive gaits., Technical Report 2996, INRIA. Grant, S., Hynes, V., Whittaker, A., & Aitchison, T. (1996). Anthropometric, strength, endurance and exibility character-

Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:13 23 December 2012

Mechanics of rock climbing

istics of elite and recreational climbers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 14, 301 309. Hammer, W., & Schmalz, U. (1992). Human behavior when climbing ladders with varying inclinations. Safety Science, 15, 2138. Holzbaur, K. R. S., Delp, S. L., Gold, G. E., & Murray, W. M. (2007). Moment-generating capacity of upper limb muscles in healthy adults. Journal of Biomechanics, 40, 24422449. Holzbaur, K. R. S., Murray, W. M., & Delp, S. L. (2005). A model of the upper extremity for simulating musculoskeletal surgery and analyzing neuromuscular control. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 33, 829840. Kuo, A. D. (2002). Energetics of actively powered locomotion using the simplest walking model. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering-Transactions of the Asme, 124, 113 120. Marino, G., & Kelly, P. (1988). Modications of force distribution in novice rock climbing technique. Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on biomechanics in sports (pp. 347 353). McIntyre, D. R. (1983). Gait patterns during free choice ladder ascents. Human Movement Science, 2, 187195. McIntyre, D. R., & Bates, B. T. (1982). Effects of rung spacing on the mechanics of ladder ascent. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 8, 5572. Mermier, C. M., Janot, J. M., Parker, D. L., & Swan, J. G. (2000). Physiological and anthropometric determinants of sport climbing performance. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 34, 359365. Mermier, C. M., Robergs, R. A., McMinn, S. M., & Heyward, V. H. (1997). Energy expenditure and physiological responses during indoor rock climbing. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 31, 224 228. Mian, O. S., Thom, J. M., Ardigo, L. P., Narici, M. V., & Minetti, A. E. (2006). Metabolic cost, mechanical work, and efciency during walking in young and older men. Acta Physiologica, 186, 127 139. Morgan, D. L., Mochon, S., & Julian, F. J. (1982). A quantitative model of intersarcomere dynamics during xed-end contractions of single frog muscle bers. Biophysical Journal, 39, 189 196. Murray, W. M., Buchanan, T. S., & Delp, S. L. (2000). The isometric functional capacity of muscles that cross the elbow. Journal of Biomechanics, 33, 943 952. Noe, F., Quaine, F., & Martin, L. (2001). Inuence of steep gradient supporting walls in rock climbing: biomechanical analysis. Gait & Posture, 13, 86 94.

131

Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 23:13 23 December 2012

Peters, P. (2001). Orthopedic problems in sport climbing. Wilderness & Environmental Medicine, 12, 100110. Quaine, F., & Martin, L. (1999). A biomechanical study of equilibrium in sport rock climbing. Gait & Posture, 10, 233239. Quaine, F., Martin, L., & Blanchi, J. P. (1997a). Effect of a leg movement on the organization of the forces at the holds in a climbing position 3-D kinetic analysis. Human Movement Science, 16, 337346. Quaine, F., Martin, L., & Blanchi, J. P. (1997b). The effect of body position and number of supports on wall reaction forces in rock climbing. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 13, 1423. Russell, S., Bennett, B., Sheth, P., & Abel, M. (2011). The gait of children with and without cerebral palsy: Work, energy, and angular momentum. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 27, 99 107. Testa, M., Martin, L., & Debu, B. (1999). Effects of the type of holds and movement amplitude on postural control associated with a climbing task. Gait & Posture, 9, 5764. Umberger, B. R., & Rubenson, J. (2011). Understanding muscle energetics in locomotion: New modeling and experimental approaches. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 39, 5967. Watts, P. (2004). Physiology of difcult rock climbing. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 91, 361372. Watts, P. B., Daggett, M., Gallagher, P., & Wilkins, B. (2000). 185, 190 Metabolic response during sport rock climbing and the effects of active versus passive recovery. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 21. Willems, P. A., Cavagna, G. A., & Heglund, N. C. (1995). External, internal and total work in human locomotion. Journal of Experimental Biology, 198, 379 393. Winter, D. A. (1990). Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. NY: Wiley-Interscience. Zahalak, G. I., & Motabarzadeh, I. (1997). A re-examination of calcium activation in the Huxley cross-bridge model. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 119, 2029. Zajac, F. E. (1989). Muscle and tendon: properties, models, scaling, and application to biomechanics and motor control. Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, 17, 359411. Zampagni, M. L., Brigadoi, S., Schena, F., Tosi, P., & Ivanenko, Y. P. (2011). Idiosyncratic control of the center of mass in expert climbers. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 21, 688699. Zirker, C. (2011). Development of biomechanical models to identify efcient locomotive strategies in rock climbing. Masters of Engineering, University of Virginia, VA.