&Illistic Walking: An Improved Model

SIMON MOCHON AND THOMAS A. McMAHON

Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard Universily Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Receiwd 10 December 1979

ABSTRACT

A mathematical model of the swing phase of walking is presented. The lower

extremities are represented by links, and the rest of the body by a point mass at the hip
joint. It is assumed that no muscular moments are provided to any of the joints of the
extremities during the swing phase. The body then moves under the action of gravity
alone. The model analyzed here is an improvement of a previous model by the same
authors. The range of possible times of swing for each step length is computed for the
model, and the results are compared with published experimental data. Typical histograms
of forces applied to the ground and angles of the limbs against time are also given. The
computed forces and angles have the same genera1 time course as those found experimen-
tally in normal walking, with the exception of the vertical force. The reasons responsible
for this are discussed. The comparison of the results of the model with normal walking
also suggests the possible effects that the absent determinants have on gait.

1. INTRODUCTION
Human walking is a very complicated activity in which the cyclic
movements of the lower extremities translate the body in the forward
direction. These movements are due to the action of muscles, which in turn
are coordinated by the nervous system.
In walking at low and moderate speeds, the kinetic and potential
energies of the center of mass of the body change approximately in opposite
phase, so that the total energy is kept at a relatively constant level. This
means that gravity is used to minimize the work that the muscles have to do
to translate the center of mass of the body (external work).
In addition to the movement of the center of mass, there are also
changes in the relative positions and velocities of each limb of the body.
The net action of the muscles tending to change the angles of the joints is
given by the moments applied to each of these joints during the walking
cycle. Relatively strong moments are applied to the hip, knee and ankle
joints during the stance phase, but during most of the swing phase these

MA THEMATICAL BIOSCIENCES 52:241-260 (1980) 241

BElsevier North Holland, Inc., 1980
52 Vanderbilt Ave., New York, NY 10017 0025~5564/80/100241+20$02.25
242 SIMON MOCHON AND THOMAS A. McMAHON

moments are relatively small (see for example Zarrugh [14]). Electromyo-
graphic traces also show that the muscles of the swing leg are reasonably
silent during the whole swing period, except just at the beginning and end
(Basmajian [ 11).
Thus, on electromyographic as well as dynamic grounds it seems plausi-
ble that the swing phase of the human gait may be described as a ballistic
motion. Based on this, a theoretical model for human walking has been
developed, which proceeds from the assumption that no muscular moments
are provided to any of the joints of the extremities after the initial positions
and velocities of the joints have been established at the beginning of the
swing phase. Therefore this ballistic model moves through its stride under
the influence of gravity alone, and finishes in a position which allows direct
entry into the next step. In an earlier paper (Mochon and McMahon 191,
henceforth referred to as MM), a simple ballistic walking model was
analyzed. The next section gives a quick review of that paper. In the present
paper, an improved model is presented.
Saunders, Inman, and Eberhart [ 111, in their investigation with amputees,
concluded that the major determinants of human gait are: (1) pelvic
rotation, (2) pelvic tilt, (3) knee flexion, (4) hip flexion, (5) knee and ankle
interaction, and (6) lateral pelvic displacement. The model discussed in MM
includes only two of the six determinants: hip flexion (4) and knee flexion
of the swing leg (3). The present paper examines the addition of two more
determinants: knee and ankle interaction of the stance leg (5) and pelvic
rotation (1).
When a person walks, he has a range of possible step frequencies for a
given step length. The purpose of this work is to predict the range of these
parameters of gait. This is important because in gait abnormalities these
ranges are severely reduced, so that an understanding of the limiting factors
of the parameters and in general of the mechanics of walking may permit
the suggestion of therapeutic interventions designed to improve these patho-
logical gaits.
Previous theoretical works are mainly optimal type approaches based on
the hypothesis that walking is performed in a -way that requires the least
expenditure of energy. Among them are the works by Beckett and Chang [2]
and Chow and Jacobson [5]. Our model is essentially different from these,
since we assume zero muscular torques acting during the swing and there-
fore the total energy is kept constant.

2. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS MODEL

This section contains a brief summary of our previous model. For further
details the reader should consult the paper by Mochon and McMahon [9].
The model, shown schematically in Fig. 1, consists of three links: one
representing the stance leg and two representing the thigh and shank of the
BALLISTIC WALKING 243

d- d- I
SL SL

FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the stiff-stance-leg model. The numbers (I), (2),
and (3) give respectively the position of the model at heel strike, toeing off, and following
heel strike. The angles, lengths, and positions of the centers of mass of each limb are
shown in the figure. For meaning of symbols see Appendix.

swing leg. The foot of the swing leg is rigidly attached to the distal link, and
therefore does not constitute a separate link. Each link is assumed to have a
distributed mass. The moment of inertia and location of the center of mass
of each link are taken from the anthropometric data of Dempster (given in
Williams and Lissner [12]). The mass of the trunk, head, and arms is
represented by a point mass at the hip joint.
Since, by assumption, no muscular torques are applied at any of the
joints, the total energy is conserved. Thus, the equations of motion were
obtained by applying Lagrange’s equations for conservative systems.
A number of initial and final conditions were imposed to specify the
motion. At toeing off [(2) in Fig. I] the condition that the toe is still in
contact with the ground and a distance S,-d from the ankle of the other leg
imposes two geometric conditions. Another condition specifies the distance
that the center of mass of the body moves during the double support phase.
This is taken from the experimental data of Cavagna et al. [4]. We also
required that at heel strike [(3) in Fig. I] the knee angle should arrive at zero
and the heel of the swing leg should contact the ground. Additionally we
imposed two kinematic constraints: one requires that the foot must clear the
ground at all times. The other is that the vertical force applied at the ground
must always remain positive; otherwise the model will fly off the ground.
244 SIMON MOCHON AND THOMAS A. McMAHON

Before solving the equations on a computer, we transformed them to

dimensionless form using the length I of the leg and its natural half period
(with rigid knee) T, = rr( I,/M,gz)‘/2 as the scales for length and time. With
this, then, the step length S, is normalized with respect to the length of the
leg, and time of swing T, is normalized with respect to the natural half-period
of the leg.
The constraints imposed on the model will set limits on the possible
range of the variables. The results of the analysis are shown in Fig. 2. The
time of swing is varied in this model by changing the initial angular velocity
of the stance leg (higher values of this initial angular velocity correspond to
smaller times of swing). The initial angular velocities of the thigh and shank
of the swing leg are then adjusted to satisfy the final conditions imposed.
The leftmost heavy line in Fig. 2 represents those swings in which the toe of
the swing leg grazes the ground in mid stride. When the time of swing is
made smaller than this limit (to the left of this line), the toe will strike the

FIG. 2. The range of possible times of swing (shaded) for the model shown in Fig. 1.
The upper diagrams show the moment of toeing off (left broken configuration), maximum
knee flexion (continuous configuration), and maximum hip flexion (right broken config-
uration) for a step length of 1.0 and a maximum knee flexion of 90” (left diagram) and
125” (right diagram).
BALLISTIC WALKING 245

ground at mid swing. For a fixed step length, higher values of the time of
swing are found to correspond with higher maximum knee flexion angle.
The next two heavy near-vertical lines in Fig. 2 correspond to those swings
in which the knee has flexed to a maximum of 90” and 125”, respectively.
This 125” limit seems to us a reasonable physiological limit for knee flexion.
The boundaries of S, x0.5 and S, = 1.0 represent the range of step lengths
most commonly used in normal walking (Grieve [7]).
A light line is also shown in Fig. 2. This line divides those swings during
which the model will fly off the ground (to the left of this line) from those in
which it will not. Note, then, that the condition of positive vertical force at

Fro. 3. Solid lines: calculated angles and ground reactions as a function of time
during the swing phase for a limiting case where the foot just clears the ground. Broken
lines: F,, FH, and 6’ for a simple inverted pendulum which starts with the same initial
angle and velocity.
246 SIMON MOCHON AND THOMAS A. McMAHON

I I I I I I I I
0 0.5
time, s

FIG. 4. Experimental traces of the vertical and forward forces on the ground in
normal walking (from Cavagna [3]). The solid arrow shows the time of toeing off; the
broken arrow, the moment of heel strike.

the ground is not a determining factor in setting a lower limit to the time of
swing.
Typical histograms of force and angles against time during the swing
phase are given in Fig. 3. Forces are normalized with respect to body
weight. For comparison, experimental traces of the vertical and forward
forces on the ground reproduced from Cavagna and Margaria [3] are
presented in Fig. 4 (the portion between the arrows is the swing phase.)
Figure 3 shows that the predicted angles and ground reactions have the
same general shape as those found experimentally for normal walking
during the swing phase, except for the vertical force, which resembles the
vertical force due to an inverted pendulum swinging freely through its
position of unstable equilibrium.
Figure 5 shows a comparison of the range of times of swing predicted by
this model (shaded area) with the experimental results of Grieve and Gear
[6]. The three heavy lines are the same shown in Fig. 2. Each vertical line
represents the range of possible times of swing for a subject. We can see
that the range of times of swing predicted by the ballistic model encom-
passes most of the times of swing found experimentally. The discrepancy
BALLISTIC WALKING 247

0.6
u) t-

p 0.5
r
* 0.4
s
(: 0.3
F
0.2
1
0.1t, I,' I I I I I
0.7 0.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.6
STATURE, m

FIG. 5. The range of times of swing observed in each subject is represented by a

vertical line plotted against stature. Superimposed is the range of times predicted by the
model with stiff stance leg (shaded area). The lower line corresponds to the limit where the
toe just clears the ground. The upper solid line represents the boundary when a maximum
of 125” of knee flexion is allowed; the middle solid line represents 90” maximum knee
flexion. The broken line gives the half natural period of the leg considered as a compound
pendulum with a joint at the knee.

for small statures suggests that young children have a different mechanism
of walking; this is discussed further in Mochon and McMahon [9].

3. IMPROVED MODELS OF WALKING

A. WALKING WITH KNEE FLEXION OF THE STANCE LEG

We saw that the simple model presented in the last section predicts
reasonably well the time course of the angles of the limbs and the horizontal
ground force, but fails to give an accurate description of the vertical force.
Improvements to this model may be made in two directions: one is to
investigate the effects that the determinants absent from the previous model
have on walking, when added progressively; the other is to correct the lack
of agreement between the vertical ground force and the experimental results
by adding an appropriate mechanism. These two directions are not mutu-
ally exclusive, and in fact we expect that if our assumption of ballistic
walking is correct and if the six determinants given by Saunders et al. [ 1l]
provide the unifying principles of walking, the addition of all of them to the
model will bring the vertical force into agreement with experimental data.
One possible mechanism for raising the vertical ground force at the end
of the swing phase is the lifting of the heel of the stance leg. Very crudely,
248 SIMON MOCHON AND THOMAS A. McMAHON

we can model this as follows (see Fig. 6): after toeing off [(l) in Fig. 61 the
stance leg rotates about the ankle until it reaches 90” at the middle of the
swing phase. After this, the heel begins to rise, rotating around the middle
of the foot and keeping the ankle at a constant angle (90”) until heel strike.
This mechanism by itself cannot improve the results obtained before,
because in the second part of the swing, with constant ankle angle, we have
only redefined the length of the leg as ( I2 + r ’ ) ‘I’. This will raise the vertical
force in mid swing, but at the end of this phase the force will again decrease
with time. We then also added knee flexion of the stance leg to the model to
see if these two mechanisms together will lift the center of mass enough to
bring the vertical force to higher values at the end of the swing. With these
additions, then, a further determinant is included in the model: this is knee
and ankle interaction.
The model treated in this section is schematically shown in Fig. 6. It
consists of four links representing the thighs and shanks of both legs, and a
point mass at the hip representing the mass of the rest of the body. All the
inertial properties of the links are the same as in the model with stiff stance
leg. The only difference is that the mass of the foot is not lumped within the
mass of the shank. Instead, the mass of the foot is represented as a point
mass at the ankle joints. This is done because the mass of the foot should
enter in the dynamics only if the heel is raised from the ground.
The division of the stance leg into two links introduces a problem if we
want to continue with our ballistic assumption that no muscular moments
should be applied at any of the joints. If no further restrictions are imposed,

SC- d SL

FIG. 6. Schematic representation of the model with knee flexion of the stance leg.
The numbers (1) and (2) give respectively the positions of the model at toeing off and heel
strike. The angles, lengths, and positions of the centers of mass of each limb are shown.
See Appendix for meaning of symbols.
BALLISTIC WALKING 249

the model will collapse at mid swing because the knee of the stance leg is
unstable.
This problem is solved without violating the ballistic assumption if we
assume that the angles of the thigh and shank of the stance leg are
functionally related in the form @=&a). This constraint is equivalent to
prescribing the trajectory of the hip of the model. The point mass at the hip
is then constrained to move in the same way as a bead is constrained to
move along a wire under the action of gravity, and therefore the total
energy of the system will be conserved. Note that this would not be true if
instead a and B were prescribed as a function of time (this would give not
only the trajectory but also the velocity and acceleration).

a. Equations of motion. The total kinetic energy for the system shown in
Fig. 6 is given by

K T=fa,ti2+fa2d2+fa,r$2+~a462 +b,~Bc0s(8+qb)+b2~~c0s(~+a)

+6,~~cos(9-a)+c,ai8sin(a-8)+c2aiBcos(B-(Y)+d,~~sin(cr+~)

+d,ai$cos(a++)+f,Gsin(a+a)+f,&+cos(a+o). (1)

The total potential energy is given by

P,=u,sina+u,cosa+ujcosB+u4cos++u5cosu, (2)

where the meaning of constants is given in the Appendix.

From these expressions, the equations of motion can be obtained by the
use of Lagrange’s equations. In doing this, O should be treated as a
dependent variable, so that O= C9(a), e( a, dl) = fI’( a)&, and f@a, ci) = B’di +
ew, where primes denote derivatives with respect to a.
We then arrive at the following equations:

[a, +a2~‘2-2c,0’sin(e-~)+2c,e’c0s(B-a)]di

+[a2e’efl+c,eyi-e’)cos(e-a)+c,e”sin(a-8)
+c,e’(1-8’)sin(e-a)+c2e~c0s(e-a)]~2
+[b,e’cos(B+cp)+d,sin(a+~)+d,cos(cu+qb)];i,

+[-b,B’sin(8++)+d,cos(a++)-dzsin(a++)]+*

+[b2fYcos(f9+a)+f,sin(a+u)+ftcos(a+u)]ii

+[-b2fl’sin(/3+u)+f,cos(a+u)-f2sin(a+u)]t_+2

= -u,cosa+u,sina+u,fl’sin8,
250 SIMON MOCHON AND THOMAS A. McMAHON

[d,sin(a++)+d,cos(a+cp)+6,fI’cos(8++)]di

+a,;l,+f@cos(+-a)+b3ti2sin(+-u)=u,sin+. (4)
The third equation can be obtained by changing c$, u, a3, b,, d,, d,,, and u4
to u, 9, u4, b,, f,, f2, and us, respectively, in Eq. (4).
We impose two initial and two final conditions. The initial conditions
represent the geometric constraint that at toeing off [(1) in Fig. 61 the toe of
the swing leg has not yet been moved; this then gives the following
conditions:

l,coscr,+I,cosf&,-l,cos~r,-112cosu0-dsinu,=0, (5)
I,sina,+I,sinBO+I,sincp,+I,sinuO-dcosu,,=S,-d. (6)

The final conditions state the assumption that at heel strike [(2) in Fig. 61
the heel touches the ground at a distance S, from the previous heel strike
(the step length is constant from one step to the next). These conditions are
given by

r sin a,+ lz cos a,+ I, cos I!?,- I, Cos +,- I, cos a,= 0, (7)
r(1 -cos a,) +f,sina,+/,sin8,+/,sincp,+Z2sinu,=SL (8)

(see the Appendix for the meaning of the constants). We will describe below
how the initial and final angles were chosen from experimental data in such
a way that they satisfy the above four conditions.
As in the case of the previous model, we have imposed two kinematic
constraints. One requires that the foot must clear the ground at all times.
The other is that the vertical force applied to the ground must always
remain positive.
All the equations have been changed to dimensionless form, using for
consistency the same scales as in the previous model.
b. Relation between a and 8. The relation between the angles a and 8
was determined using experimental data from Murray [IO] and Lamoreux
[8]. These works report data for knee angle p and hip angle 8; the angle a
can then be obtained from the relation a =tl+fi.
Since in the equations not only 0 appears but also its derivatives 8 and
0”, an analytic representation of this function is much more advantageous
than a table of values. For each step length, we obtained this relation as
follows. First the end points of this function were determined. These
correspond to the angles of the thigh and shank at toeing off and heel strike
(see Fig. 7). From experimental data these angles were obtained. Unfor-
tunately, they were incompatible with the conditions (5) to (8). There are
BALLISTIC WALKING 251

FIG. 7. Relationship between knee angle fl and thigh angle 13 used to model knee
flexion of the stance leg. The two curves represent different step lengths. The one of large
amplitude is for S, = 1.0; the other is for S, = 0.75..

several reasons for this. One is that our model does not have a link
representing the pelvis, and therefore geometrically it should have some
differences. Also, the definition of the angles of the joints varies from
author to author, and in fact experimental data from different investigators
can have large discrepancies. To solve this problem, the initial and final
angles were chosen as close as possible to the experimental data but
consistent with the initial and final conditions imposed. Having obtained
these values, the relation between (Yand 6’ was assumed to have one of the
forms
e(a) =A+Bcos(wff+6), (9)
Q(o) =aa3+ba2+ca+d, (10)

where A, B, w, 6, a, 6, c, and dare constants to be determined. These forms

were suggested by the experimental data when plotted in these variables.
The constants were obtained so as to make the relation satisfy four
conditions. Two of the conditions are the initial and final points obtained
before. Third, the minimum value of knee flexion achieved should be the
same given from experimental data. The fourth condition is also based on
experimental data, and it is that the slope of the curve @(a) at the point of
heel strike should be zero; this is because the thigh of the stance leg arrives
with zero angular velocity at the moment of heel strike. This condition then
gives an infinite slope at heel strike in a plot of knee angle p against thigh
angle 0 (see Fig. 7). The form (9) was generally used except for large step
lengths, in which case this form was not able to satisfy the third condition,
and then the form (10) was used.
252 SIMON MOCHON AND THOMAS A. McMAHON

Figure 7 gives the shape of the relation obtained in a plot of knee angle /3
versus thigh angle 0. The two curves represent different step lengths: the
one of large amplitude is for a large step length; the other is for moderate
step lengths. For small step lengths, it is found experimentally that the knee
is fully extended and therefore the relation in this case is simply 0= a
(P=O).
The important point of this relation is that it models the flexion of the
knee of the stance leg with progressively larger amplitudes as the step length
increases, in accordance with experimental findings.

c. Results. For this case with flexion of the knee of the stance leg, Fig.
8 shows the results of the analysis. As in Fig. 2, the leftmost heavy line
separates those times of swing for which the foot clears the ground (to the
right of the line) from those for which the toe will strike the ground in mid
swing. The next two heavy lines correspond to swings in which the knee of
the swing leg has reached a maximum of 90” and 125”, respectively. The
range of step lengths investigated, from 0.5 to 1.0, is the range most
commonly used in normal walking.
Comparing these results with the corresponding ones of the last model
(Fig. 2) we note first that for a step length of 0.5, the limits of the time of
swing are the same. This is because for small step lengths the stance leg was
maintained rigid throughout the swing. As the step length increases, the
possible times of swing are generally reduced for this case. For the model
with stiff stance leg we found instead a slight increase in these times. In
normal walking, bigger lengths are accompanied by smaller times of swing.

SL
t

FIG. 8. The range of possible times of swing for each step length for the model with
knee flexion of the stance leg (Fig. 6).
BALLISTIC WALKING 253

The more recent model is therefore in better agreement with this experimen-
tal observation. Due to this reduction of the times of swing for large step
lengths, the velocities that can be achieved by the more recent model are
higher.
In Fig. 8, a light line is also shown. To the left of this line are those
swings in which the vertical force reaches negative values. At some point
during these swings, therefore, the model will fly off the ground. In this
case, the constraint of positive vertical force limits the speeds the model can
reach. As will be explained later, this drop of the vertical force to negative
values is due to a missing mechanism in the model, so we can regard this

FIO. 9. Typical excursions of the angles of the links during the swing phase for the
model shown in Fig. 6.
254 SIMON MOCHON AND THOMAS A. McMAHON

line as fictitious when interpreting the results for normal walking. Therefore
we have included those swings to the left of this curve in the area of
possible walks.
Figure 9 gives the angles of the links as a function of time during a
typical swing phase. The corresponding forces at the ground are shown in
Fig. 10. Both angles and forces have the same shape found in normal
walking, except for the vertical force. No real improvement for this variable
has been achieved relative to the results of the model with stiff stance leg.
Both models predict a trace of the vertical force with a maximum at mid
stance. This is in disagreement with the traces of the vertical ground force
found experimentally (Fig. 4). An explanation of this will be given below.
Although the results of this model for the vertical force might seem
disappointing, they in fact show something important: that neither the
raising of the heel nor the flexion of the knee of the stance leg is the
mechanism responsible for the shape of the vertical force found in normal
walking.
Another useful conclusion concerns the effect that the flexion of the
stance knee has on walking. The more recent model with the additional
determinant of knee and ankle interaction predicts higher speeds of walking
than our previous model. The effect of this determinant is to decrease the
amplitude of the oscillation of the center of mass of the body. Therefore,

FIG. 10. The corresponding forces on the ground for the swing exemplified in Fig. 9.
BALLISTIC WALKING 255

O.l/-, I,’ I I I I I
0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
STATURE, m

FIG. 11. Each vertical line represents the range of times of swing for an individual
(from Grieve and Gear (61). The shaded area shows the prediction of this range by the
model with knee flexion of the stance leg (Fig. 6). The lower line corresponds to the limit
where the toe just clears the ground. The other two represent 90” and 125” of maximum
knee flexion. The broken line gives the natural half period of the leg. Since the lower solid
line is lower here than it was in Fig. 5, agreement between theory and experiment is
improved.

the changes of potential and kinetic energies are reduced, and the accelera-
tions and decelerations of the center of mass found in “compass gait”
(stance leg rigid) are decreased. This then reduces the overall time of swing,
increasing the speed of walking.
Another improvement found in the results of this model is that for larger
step lengths it predicts that the possible times of swing are reduced. This is
in accordance with the way in which these two parameters are related in
normal walking.
Figure 11 gives a comparison of the results of this model with experimen-
tal results. As was explained in the last section, this figure, taken from
Grieve and Gear [6], gives the range of possible times of swing for different
subjects (represented by vertical lines) as a function of stature. The shaded
area corresponds to the predictions of the model shown schematically in
Fig. 8. Comparing Fig. 11 with Fig. 5, we can see that the lower boundary
of the shaded region has been shifted down by the addition of stance-leg
flexion to the model, making a small improvement in the agreement
between theory and experiment.

B. WALKING INCLUDING PELVIC ROTATION

If we wanted to investigate rigorously the effect that pelvic rotation has

on walking, we would have to add to our model another link which joins the
256 SIMON MOCHON AND THOMAS A. McMAHON

hips of both legs to represent the pelvis. Fortunately, this is not necessary,
and in fact it is very simple to add the dynamics of the rotation of the
pelvis. From Lamoreux’s data [8], it can be seen that curves of pelvic
rotation during the swing phase for different speeds can be approximated
well by straight lines. This means that during the swing period the pelvis
rotates at a nearly constant angular speed and therefore the forward
displacement of one hip relative to the other is performed at almost
constant speed.
If we assume that during the swing phase the hips move at a constant
speed relative to each other, then adding another link to the model to
simulate the rotation of the pelvis will not change its dynamics at all. The
only change that this addition will produce on the model is to increase the
step length by an amount equal to the relative horizontal displacement of
the hips (this is given by the sum of the horizontal distances between the
hips at toeing off and at heel strike). The time of swing will be unaffected.
This change can be very easily included in the model. From Lamoreux’s
data, we find that at heel strike, pelvic rotation is about 2” for low speeds
and goes up to 12” for high speeds. This range is approximately the same at
toeing off. If we assume that the length of the pelvic link is 30% of the
length of the leg [ 131, the total advance due to pelvic rotations is about 0.02
for low speeds (small step lengths) and about 0.125 for high speeds (large
step lengths). If we incorporate these changes into Fig. 8, adding to each
step length the corresponding advance due to pelvic rotation computed in
the way shown above, Fig. 12 is obtained. As can be seen, the effect of

SL

I-

.5- fl

FIG. 12. Same boundaries shown in Fig. 8, but adding the effect of pelvic rotation.
BALLISTIC WALKING 257

pelvic rotation is to allow the body to reach a higher step length without
changing the minimum time of swing. The combined effect, therefore, is to
increase the speed of walking. As was explained in the previous section, the
light line representing the boundary for those swings which will fly off the
ground can be disregarded.
Generally, then, the use of pelvic rotation allows for a decrease of the
excursion of the limbs to achieve the same step length.

5. DISCUSSION
In this paper, we have analyzed the contribution of four of the determi-
nants of gait to the mechanics of walking. We started with the stiff-legged
walking model, which includes only one determinant (hip flexion), and we
have added progressively three other determinants (knee flexion, knee and
ankle interaction, and pelvic rotation) to study their effects on walking.
Only two determinants have not been included in the model presented in
this paper. These are pelvic tilt and lateral pelvic displacement. We do not
expect lateral pelvic displacement to have a significant influence on any of
the variables investigated in this paper, provided that the amplitudes of the
lateral movements are small, because the lateral displacements would have
to be quite large to change the effective length of the limbs. In any case, the
addition of a lateral degree of freedom to our model would complicate it
substantially, as there would be coupling between the lateral- and saggital-
plane motions.
Pelvic tilt reaches a maximum shortly after toeing off. At this point, the
hip of the stance leg is higher than the hip of the swing leg. After this, the
hip of the swing leg is raised until mid swing, where both hips reached the
same vertical position and continue so until heel strike. From this we see
that pelvic tilt is significant only in the first part of swing phase.
Although we have studied the interaction between knee and ankle of the
stance leg, the angular movement of the ankle was modeled very crudely by
assuming that this joint was locked at 90” in the second part of the swing.
This is not exactly true, and in fact plantarflexion is observed in this period
until heel strike (Murray [lo]).
We expect, then, that the introduction of pelvic tilt and stance-leg ankle
plantarflexion into the model will improve agreement between the calcu-
lated and observed vertical-force traces. Pelvic tilt would be responsible for
the first maximum found in the vertical force immediately after toeing off,
and ankle plantarflexion would be the mechanism for bringing the vertical
force back above body weight before heel strike. This view is supported by
Cavagna and Margaria’s findings [3] on the external positive work in
walking. They observed that this work is due to two contributions at distinct
moments of the step cycle. One vertical thrust is necessary to complete the
lift of the center of gravity of the body (pelvic tilt) which ends when the
258 SIMON MOCHON AND THOMAS A. McMAHON

center of gravity is at its highest level. The other is due to the forward and
upward push of the foot leaving the ground (ankle movement).
With this in mind, we can see that the light lines in Figs. 8 and 12 should
not be taken into account in evaluating the possible range of times of swing,
since we expect that the addition of ankle movement will increase the
vertical force at the end of the swing phase where we found previously
negative values.
We can say then that the mechanisms absent from the models considered
in this paper can plausibly account for the discrepancies between theory
and experiment found in the vertical force traces. To prove this, a more
complicated model which includes the remaining missing determinants of
gait is needed.

6. CONCLUSIONS
Summarizing then, the most important conclusions of this paper are:

(1) The constraint that the foot of the swing leg must clear the ground
was found to be a limiting factor in going to higher speeds for each step
length.
(2) Knee flexion of the stance leg and pelvic rotation were found to be
mechanisms for increasing the speed of walking, the former by decreasing
the time of swing and the latter by increasing the step length.
(3) Within the context of the ballistic walking models considered in this
paper, neither the raising of the heel nor flexion of the knee of the stance leg
is the mechanism responsible for increasing the vertical force in the second
part of the swing phase.
(4) This work also suggests that the remaining two determinants of gait,
pelvic tilt and ankle dorsi-plantarflexion, are the mechanisms responsible
for the two maxima seen in the vertical force during the swing phase of
normal walking.

APPENDIX

A. LIST OF SYMBOLS

Zero and f subscript mean the initial and final state of the variable.

MT, M,, M,, M,, M, Mass of body, leg, thigh, shank, and foot
I, I,, 12, d Length of the leg, thigh, shank and foot
r Length of the part of the foot of the stance leg
which is raised at mid swing, =d/2
-- -
z z,, z, Distance of the center of mass of the leg, thigh,
and shank to proximal end
111712 Radius of gyration of the thigh and shank around
proximal end
BALLISTIC WALKING 259

4, I,, 12 Moment of inertia of the leg, thigh, and shank

around proximal end
Gravitational constant
(Step length)/(leg length)
Normalized time = t/c
Normalized time of swing
n(&/WgZ) ‘1’ = time of swing (half period) for
the leg with rigid knee
Velocity of walking = (forward distance
traveled)/T,
Angle that the thigh and shank of stance leg and
thigh and shank of swing leg make with the vertical
Knee angles: K=+-u, p=a--8

B. DEMPSTER’S DATA [12]

M, /MT = 0.097, M2 /MT = 0.045,

M,/MT =0.014,

Z,/I, =0.433, z, /I, = 0.433,

IJ, =0.54, Q = 0.528,

I, =12, d= l/4.

C. CONSTANTS APPEARING IN EQUATIONS

a,=MT(r2 +I:)-M& -2M,I,z, +I=,

a2 =(MT -M, -M,)lf -2M,l,z, +I,,

a3 =(M2 +M,)lf +I,,

a4 =Mfig +I,,
-
x1 =M,Z, +(M, +M,Y,,
-
x2 =M,Z, +M,lz,
-
x2 =(MT -M, -M,)l, -M,Z,,

6, =x,1,,
b, =xzl,,
6, =bz,

CI =x,r,
260 SIMON MOCHON AND THOMAS A. McMAHON

c,=x,l,,

d, =x!r,

d,=x,l,,
f, =x2r,

fz=x2121
uI =M,rg,
-
~2 = (MT/Z - My’2 - M,Z,k,

uj-xjg,

uq= -x1g9

u5= -x,g.

This work was supported by grants AM 19638-03 and AM 25829-01 from

the National Institute of Arthritis, Metabolism, and Digestive Diseases,
Bethesda, Maryland.

REFERENCES

1 J. V. Basmajian, The human bicycle, in Biomechanics V-A (P. V. Komi, Ed.),

University Park Press, 1976, pp. 297-302.
2 R. Beckett and K. Chang, An evaluation of the kinematics of gait by minimum
energy, J. Biomech. 1:147- 159 (1968).
3 G. A. Cavagna and R. Margaria, Mechanics of walking, J. Appl. Physiol. 21:211-278
(1966).
4 G. A. Cavagna, H. Thys, and A. Zamboni, The sources of external work in level
walking and running, J. Physiol. 262:639-657 (1976).
5 C. K. Chow and D. H. Jacobson, Studies of human locomotion via optimal program-
ming, Math. Biosci. 10:239-306 (1971).
6 D. W. Grieve and R. J. Gear, The relationship between the length of stride, step
frequency, time of swing and speed of walking for children and adults, Ergonomics
9:379-399 (1966).
7 D. W. Grieve, Gait patterns and the speed of walking, Bio-Med. Eng. 3:119-122
(1968).
8 L. W. Lamoreux, Kinematic measurements in the study of human walking, Bull.
Prosthetics Res. BPR lO-15:3-84 (1971).
9 S. Mochon and T. A. McMabon, Ballistic walking, J. Biomech. 13:49-57 (1980).
10 M. P. Murray, Gait as a total pattern of movement, Amer. J. Phys. Med. 46:290-333
(1967).
11 J. B. Saunders, V. T. Inman, and H. D. Eberhart, The major determinants in normal
and pathological gait, J. Bone Jt. Surg. 35-A:543-558 (1953).
12 M. Williams and H. R. Lissner, Biomechanics of Human Motion, W. B. Saunders,
1974.
13 D. A. Winter, Biomechanics of Human Mouement, Wiley, New York, 1979, p. 48.
14 M. Y. Zarrugh, Energy and power in human walking, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of
California, Berkeley, 1976.