You are on page 1of 8

ANKLE JOINT BIOMECHANICS

P. PKOCTER
Laboratorium fur Biomechanik. ETH-Zentrum. CH-PW2 Zurich

and
J. P. P\t Bwn$neering Unit. University I. Glasgow. Scotland

of Strathclyde,

Abstract--A three-dimensional analysis of the human ankle joint is presented to analyse data obtained from gait laboratory tests. The ankle was treated as consisting of two joints. the talocrural (Tc.) and the talocalcaneonavicular (Ten.). and relevant anatomical dimensions were based upon cadaveric anthropometric data, Seven adult male subjects were studied during the stance phase of normal locomotion. Data was acquired from three orthogonally placed tine cameras and a force platform. Two models were investigated based on force equilibrium; a Mark I model which excluded the posterior tibia1 and peroneal muscle groups and a Mark II model, which included them. The Mark II model gave the followmp resultant peak forces expressed as multiples of body weight: Tc. joint force = 3.9; Ten. joint forces-anterior facet = 2.4, posterior facet = 2.8. The latter model was felt to have good potential in the analytical assessment of ankle pathologies and endoprostheses.

I>TRODI

CTIOS

The human ankle joint has already been extensively studied from anatomical and clinical viewpoints. In biomechanics it remains the last major joint system in the leg for which a comprehensive three-dimensional analysis has yet to be performed. Force analysis of the ankle joint for normal locomotion has hitherto been confined either to the consideration of external force actions (Bresler and Frankel, 1950) or to calculation of the internal forces acting in simplified twodimensional models of the ankle (Brewster et <I/..1974; Stauffer ef al.. 1977). The present study included the two principal joint systems of the ankle. the talocrural (Tc.) or upper ankle joint and the talocalcaneonavicular (Ten.) or lower ankle joint. The Tc. joint is usually considered to act as a simple hinge allowing flexion and extension of the talus relative to the shank segment. The Ten. joint is also thought to be basically uniaxial, permitting the motions of inversion and eversion of the hindfoot segment relative to the talus. The relative orientation of the Tc. and Ten. axes is illustrated in Fig. 1, using data published in the literature (Manter, 1941 ; Isman and Inman. 1969 : Inman. 1976). This figure illustrates the three-dimensional nature of these joints. This paper outlines the development and evaluation of a three-dimensional model of the Tc. and Ten. joint systems for normal locomotion activity.
:t.\THROPOSIETRIC STCDIES

tion studies ofembalmed cadaver material. Altogether five cadavers were dissected to obtain anthropometric data in respect of ligament. retinaculum and tendon lines of action, bony reference point coordinates, and joint profiles. The cadaveric Tc. and Ten. joint axes were determined using the optical methods of Hicks (1953) and Isman and Inman (1969); briefly this

The ankle models formulated were based upon data gained from the literature together with dissec-

Fig. I. The Tc. and Ten. axes projected on the right foot, annoted sources: (al Manter (1911), (b) lsman and lnman (1969). and (c) Inman (1976).

628

P. PH(KTI.H J. P. PAI L and


I\TERPRET;\TIOS OF THE ,AS-\TOMIC.~L STL DIES

involved fixing one segment whilst rotating the adjoining segment, points of least motion indicating the location of the axis (for example fixing of the tibia and rotating the talus in Rexionextension gave stationary points medially and laterally on the talar body, through which the Tc. axis was assumed to pass). In addition joint profile information was established using the contouring techniques described by Inman (1976). who used a profile gauge to investigate the curvatures in the Tc. joint (the profile gauge is a simple device used for example by glaziers in fitting glass or tiles to irregular profiles). One important finding of the dissection exercises was that, for the range of Tc. and Ten. joint motion obtaining in stance phase of normal locomotion (approximately 30 and 10 respectively; Root et al. 1971), the achilles tendon was the only tendon that changed its line of action by more than + 2.5 relative to the hindfoot segment. This is illustrated in Fig. 2 for the achilles tendon and the tendons of the anterior tibia1 and peroneus brevis muscles. The relatively small deviations observed in the remaining tendons were mainly attributed to the constraining effects of the bony and retinacular pulleys (although the effects of embalming upon soft tissues cannot altogether be discounted). The data collected were simply averaged to provide one set of anthropometric data relative to an orthogonal axis system (for a standard&d orientation of the shank and foot corresponding to erect stance).

Prior to the interpretation of the anatomical data the possible strategies for solution were considered, since this has a considerable influence upon the complexity of model that can be analysed. The options considered included invasive techniques, optimisation function methods and equilibrium methods. From these an equilibrium method was selected as the approach ofchoice, there being greater doubts, at least in the authors minds, concerning the use of the former two. Invasive techniques are clearly precluded on ethical grounds. In the case of optimisation methods, these are still being developed and have been shown in some cases to predict muscle activity that conflicts with observed behaviour (Barbenel, 1972; Yeo, 1976). The anatomical studies were therefore assessed with a view to reducing the unknown loads in the ankle to a level at which an equilibrium solution could be obtained.

The ligamentous and retinacular constraints were not included in the first two models developed. Physiologically acceptable solutions were obtained for walking activity without including these components.
The nutscles

Achilles

tendon

Antersor t,b,a,
tendon

Of the twelve muscles acting across the Tc. and Ten. joints, the plantaris and the peroneus tertius were neglected, being either small or absent altogether. The remaining muscles were combined into four groups based on phasic EMG evidence (University of California, 1953) anatomical division and innervation (Warwick and Williams, 1973). The groups were peroneal, anterior tibial, posterior tibial, and calf. In the analysis the components of each group (with the exception of the calf group, where the component muscles share a common insertion into the calcaneus) were assigned weighting factors corresponding to their average tendon cross-section as a proportion of the whole area for the group. As an example the total force exerted by the peroneal group was calculated as : {F,,) = .(a. fF4 + b. (FPH)) (1)

Reterencepmnts f,xed
to the hlndfoat segment

reiat,ve

Flex,on-extemion

degrees

t.fne of a&on a

angle -degrees b c

Fig. 2. Variation in the line of action of some shank muscle


tendons relative to the foot, Rexion*xtension for different angles.
Tc.

joint

where {Fj denotes a forcevector, with s. y and z being components. subscripts p pI_ and ,,H referring to peroneal group, peroneus longus and peroneus brevis respectively, and a = cross-sectional area of the peroneus longus tendon. b = cross-sectional area of the peroneus brevis tendon. The assumption regarding tendon cross-section as a weighting factor was made in the absence of any other factor that was known to be a reliabte predictor of load sharing between co-operating muscles. The effect of this assumption was assessed by a perturbation method in which it was assumed, for each group in turn, that only one member was active [this is the equivalent ofputting a = 1 and b = Oand then n = 0 and b = 1 in

Ankle

joint blomechanlcs

629

equation (I)] uith the remaining groups keeping their assigned weighting factors. Calculations showed that these procedures had only a small influence on the solutions obtained in respect of resultant joint forces, the lines of action and points of application being so similar within the defined groups. The calfgroup was the only group for kvhich the line of action was considered to change relative to the foot during walking activity. The calf line of action was calculated. for each instant of locomotion stance phase analysed, as a line passing between the origin areas of the gastrocnemius and soleus muscles and the insertion of both muscles via the achilles tendon into the posterior surface of the calcaneus. The three other muscle groups were assumed to have constant orientation with respect to the hindfoot segment (see earlier comments under anthropometric studies). Their orientation with respect to the Tc. joint was estimated at any instant from the relative orientation of the shank and hindfoot segments.

system. There was hokvever some e\ idencs LOsuggest incongruence at the Ten. joint. The general form of the ankle models. using the features discussed abobe, is illustrated in Figs. ?(a) and 3(b).
FOR\ICL.4TIOS OF THE \IODEL\ .i\D THEIR SOLC TlO\

Two internal axis systems were defined for the models. one for each joint system. Both axis systems were defined relative to external bony points (annotated in Fig. 51, for the position of the foot relative to the shank corresponding to erect stance. The Tc. axis system was defined as fixed relative to the shank segment and the Ten. system as fixed relative to the hindfoot segment. These definitions were necessary because the talus is inaccessible to surface markers; the definitions mean that both the Tc. and Ten. axes systems rotate relative to the talus during stance phase, about the Tc. and Ten. axes respectively. The axes illustrated in Figs 3 and 4 are an instantaneous representation of the axes, their relative orientation changing through stance phase. The Tc. flexion-extension axis was used as the Tc. system 2 axis (positive direction medial to lateral), with an origin situated midway between the medial and lateral malleoli. The Tc. Z axis together with a vector passing through the origin, perpendicular to the sole of the foot, defined the YZ Tc. plane. The X Tc. axis was then defined by a vector normal to the YZ Tc. plane and passing through the origin (positive direction posterior to anterior). The Tc. axis system is illustrated in Fig. 3(a). A similar procedure established the Ten. axis system. The Ten. inversion-eversion axis was designated as the Ten. system Z axis (positive direction anterior to posterior). The origin here was defined as the point on the Ten. axis midway between the anterior and posterior talocalcaneal articulations. The Ten. system is shown in Fig. 3(b).

The ankle was treated as two ripid free body segments, namely the talus alone and the talus plus hindfoot. The joint force systems were represented as shown in Fig. 4. The Tc. joint facets are slightly bicondylar and the .Y and 1. Tc. forces nrrc divided into medial and lateral components actins through points on the Z Tc. axis + l.Ocm either side of the origin. A component of the Tc. force was assumed to act as a single force along the Z Tc. axis as shown m Fig. 4(a) (the possibility ofsplitting the Z Tc. force into two components. one acting medially and the other laterally, was not considered). The Ten. fleets were also treated as two compartments, posterior talocalcaneal and anterior talocalcanesl plus talonavicular. The S and Y Ten. joint force components were assumed to pass through points on the Z Ten. axis f2.0cm either side of the origin. This pave two components of S and Y Ten. joint force [se? Fig. 4(b)]. As in the Tc. system. a single component ofloint force was assumed to act along the Z Ten. axis. The choice of points on each Z axis through which the joint force components were assumed to pass was not arbitrary; the origin for each system approx-

bi

Talus

lree

body

Profiles of the Tc. and Ten. joint specifically oriented to the axis above. It was found that the centre axis of rotation approximately

systems were made systems as defined ofcurvature and the coincided for each

Fig.

3. Free

body diagrams

for the ankle

630

P. PK(KTI.Kand .I. P. P.ALI tous constraint were considered. but there is both EMG and clinical evidence to suggest that muscle force from either the posterior tibia1 or peroneal groups is the factor most likely to balance the residual moment in the Mark I model. The criterion chosen for the inclusion of one or other of these groups was the sign of the Ten. residual moment when referred to the right hand side of equation (5): in this case positive moment indicates peronsal activity and negative moment posterior tibia1 activity. Since there is a possibility that these two groups act as antagonists the solutions obtained are probably a minimum in respect of muscle and joint forces. In this model there are twelve unknowns. Body segment inertial contributions to the moment equations were estimated to be small (typically 1.0 N m maximum acts about the Z Tc. axis of the ankle in stance phase) and were neglected.
Mark I model solutiort

/
Fy

This was obtained in two stages: (i) the equilibrium solution for the Tc. system using the talus plus hindfoot free body. This yields the Tc. joint forces acting upon the superior talar facets, and the tension generated by either the calf or anterior tibia1 group. The Tc. equilibrium equations are: forces: moments: (F,,,, c) + IF,,,) {M,d, ,-i + {M,,,) + {F,; = 0 (2) (3)

camponAs

Fig. 4. Force actions assumed in the joint models. imately divided the respective joint facets into two compartments and the pointseither side ofeach origin were chosen to be centrally situated in the compartments. The actual dimensions used were based upon the cadaver data. The five components of joint force acting in each system provide suflicient necessary components for the force actions transmitted by the joints. The joint forces together with the four muscle groups comprise a total of fourteen unknowns for which there are only twelve equilibrium equations. Two possible models were formulated. The Mark I model In this model either the calf group or the anterior tibia1 group were active. the relevant group being selected according to the sign of the external moment acting about the Z Tc. axis. The phasic EMG evidence indicates that these groups divide in their stance phase activity. In this model there are eleven unknowns and the only component for which there is no obvious balancing factor is the moment acting about the ZTcn. axis. This moment was assigned the name Ten. residual moment. It effectively adds one more unknown, bringing the total to twelve. The Mnrk II model

+ {M,) = 0

where f F) and (M) denote force and moment vectors respectively (the equations are expressed in vector notation for brevity and each comprises three component equations corresponding to .Y, _r and z directions). The subscripts are : .-it/C = anterior tibia1 or calf group; JTc = Tc. joint force; E = external force measurement. Equation (3) hasonly twocontributions to its Z component, due to the external force and to the muscle force; the joint force being assumed to pass through the Z Tc. axis has no moment about this axis. The sign of the external moment Z component then indicates which of the anterior tibia1 or calf group should be selected (tensile force being assumed to act in tendon). The joint force components may now be calculated. (ii) the equilibrium solution for the Ten. system, using the talar free body, provides the Ten. joint forces and residual moment. The Ten. equilibrium equations are given as: forces: moments: {F,,: {&I,,) Tm + {F,,,,: = 0 (4) (5)

rem+ (MJTcni = 0

This included an equiiibrant for the Ten. residual moment. Modified joint loading criteria and ligamen-

where subscript Ten refers the JTc components to the Ten. system, and subscript JTm designates Ten. joint force. The Z Ten. moment equation contains only one component, that due to the Tc. joint force resultant (it was assumed that the Ten. joint force resultant passed through the Z Ten. axis thus generating no Z com-

Ankle joint bivmechanics ponrnt ). This component Ten. residual moment. was earlier referred to as the and equation ;:\I,: 15 ). using equation (7). as:

631

+ :s1 (, (: + :\1,,,;;

,<.L :Yl,,L,:

= 0. (9)

This \ras obtained in a similar way but this time equations 17) and (31 contain an additional unknown due either to the peroneal or to the posterior tibia1 group component : these equations become : forces: moments: IF ,,.: = -(IF,:

f :F,,,,i

+ :F,,,))(6)

~>l,,-~~ = - (lXl,zi + ;>\I ,, (-1 + :>I,, ,,:) (7)

The Z Tc. moment equation of (7) contains only two unknown muscle forces and the Z Ten. moment equation of (9) contains the same two unknowns (there being no Z moment components due to the joint forces in either case) thus simultaneous solution of both equations gives the two muscle forces. The solution for the joint force components proceeds as for the Mark I model, with equations (6) and (8).
THE ESPERISIE5T.4L PROCEDURES

where subscript P Pr refers to peroneal or posterior tibia1 group. From the Mark I solution it was already known which of either the calf or anterior tibiai group was active (the inclusion of either of the other two muscle groups was found not to affect this. their Z Tc. moment contributions being negligible at the point where activity sivitches from anterior tibia1 to calf). It was known from the sign of the Ten. residual moment lvhich of the peroneal or posterior tibia1 groups were active. Thus equations (6) and (7) could be written in terms of the approprtate unknown muscle forces. The left hand sides ofequations (6) and (7) are the Tc. joint force contributions. the right hand sides can therefore bc substituted for the Tc. joint force components of equations (4) and (5) respectively. Equation (4) can novv be vvritten, using equation (6). as:

Fis. j E.xtsrn;il ii\es systems defined for the kinematic analysis.

Seven normal male subjects were studied during normal locomotion activity (ages ranged from twenty to thirty years). Force measurements of stance phase forces were made using a Kistler force platform, the output from which was sampled at 50 Hz and stored on tape by a PDP 12 digital computer. The kinematic data for the motion of the limb segments was obtained from tine film of bony point markers. Three orthogonally placed tine cameras (Bolex Paillard) filmed the subjects at fifty frames per second. The coordinates of the marked points were recovered from the films using a D-Mac trace analyser. True three-dimensional space coordinates Mere subsequently calculated, after correcting for parallax and errors introduced by the camera lens and shutter mechanism. Two slternal marker systems were defined from the kinematic data, these are both shown in Fig. 5. ,4n external shank system, based upon a lateral malleolar origin, defined the position and orientation of the Tc. axis system and associated internal structures. the cadaver data being scaled to fit the living subjects on a basis of uniform dilatation as used by Morrison (1970). An external hindfoot system defined the position and orientation of the Ten. system. The kinematic data was filtered at 10 Hz using a 4th order Butterworth filter, prior to the calculation of the external reference systems. Zarrugh and Radcliffe (1979) considered that 20 harmonics were necessary for adequate signal reconstruction in the case olankle joint rotation. however one of their reconstructions with only 7 harmonics compares very well with the original signal over the stance phase period : 10 Hz was therefore considered acceptable. Frame by frame the orientation and position of the Tc. and Ten. systems were calculated relative to the external laboratory system. The kinematic data were related to the force platform origin via a marker, simultaneously visible to all three cameras, whose coordinates relative to this origin were known. The origin and principle axes of the laboratory system coincided with those of the Kistler force platform. The external forces could therefore be related directly to the Tc. and Ten. systems. All the calculations involved were performed using FORTRAN programs written for an ICL 1900 series computer.

632

P. PK(XTI:K and

J. P. P

\L L

Mark
I

I model

8CC

A Tensile

KEY

TO

SUBJECTS

, -------.-._

,
2

-.-.
-_-...

5 6

I..........: ---

-t

ci Tc ]olnt

lateral

compartment

veti~cal

force.

-t

bl Ten.

residual

moment

- mark

I model

ml

50%

100% stonce
in the Mark II model.

Fig. 7. Tc. joint force resultant

cl Summary

EMG. curves-

Unwers~

ty of Callfornla

Fig. 6. (a) Comparison of the Tc. joint lateral compartment vertical force for Mark I and II models.(b) and (c)Illustration of the similarity between the Ten. residual moment and the EMG. reported for the peronealiposterior tibia1 muscles.

California study (1953) show that peaks in the activity of both groups occur in late stance. [The University of California results are summary curves and through this an important observation may have been obscured, namely that reduced activity in the posterior

RESULTS AND IX3XSSION

Two factors observed in the results indicated that the Mark I model was incomplete. Firstly, the lateral compartment Tc. joint force vertical component changed abruptly from compressive to tensile and then back again at 857, of stance phase, shown in Fig. 6(a). This is clearly unacceptable since the joint force can only be compressive. Secondly the Ten. residual moment, which was small for the first SO,:< ofstance (range O-5 N m), suddenly peaked to 35540N m at 85% stance [see Fig. 6(b)]. A further piece ofevidence from the results was that for one subject a tensile peak was observed in the medial compartment Tc. joint force
vertical component coinciding with a marked negative

Ten. residual moment, again at 85% stance. These observations suggest that balancing factors that influence both Tc. and Ten. joint systems, acting medially and laterally, are absent. The only major elements missing from the Mark I model that are able to simultaneously provide equilibrium for the Ten. residual loads and act on the Tc. joint are the peroneal and posterior tibia1 muscle groups. The EMG results obtained by the University of
peak in the

bl

Postertor

facet

Fig. 8. Ten. joint force resultants in the Mark to subjects as in Fig. 7.

II model. Key

Ankle

Joint blomechanlcs

633

+t
FIG 9 Muscle group forces in the Mark subjects ;ls in Fig. 7. II model.

Key to

tibia1 group may be associated with increased peroneal group activity and vice versa ; see Fig. 6(c)]. The prevailing clinical view is that the peroneal and posterior tibia] groups ha!e little effect upon Tc. joint tlexion-extension control. but play an important role in stabilising the Ten. joint. The Mark II model was formulated as described above and solved.

This provided acceptable solutions at the point where the Mark I model failed. the Tc. joint vertical force components bein: compressive throughout

stance phase [see Fig. 6(a)]. The resultant forcces cd for the Ts. and Ten. joints are presented for normal locomotion of seven test subjects in Figs. 7 and 8. The associated muscle group forces are presented in Fig. 9. The Tc. and Ten. joint forces show three distinct peaks. nnnoted A. B and C in Figs. 7 and 8. The A peak is part of the passive response of the foot to the heelstrike event (Nigg er (11.. 1979). The B peak is associated with the anterior tibia] group activity. whilst the C peak is in response to the calf muscles plus the late stance phase force peak obsensd in the peroneal group. The dip between the B and C peaks coincides with the transfer from anterior tibiai to calf group activity. The anterior and posterior compartment Ten. joint forces show similar peak characterlstics [see Fig. S. The peroneal and posterior tibia] muscle groups show low levels of activity (range O-O.5 times body weight. hereafter B.W.) for the first half of stance phase. This is followed by a sudden peak in peroneal force (in one subject posterior tibia1 I. There is a striking similarity in the overall appearance of the peroneal group tunes of Fig. 9 and the envelope curves for EMG of the Cniversity of California [these curves are reproduced in Fig. 6(c)]. The peak forces observed and their ranges are tabulated for the Tc. and Ten. joints and the muscle groups in Table 1. The phasic activity of the calf and anterior tibia] groups corresponds closely with published EMG results (compared in Fig. IO) if account is taken of the latenq period. The results for the prroneal and posterior tibia1 muscles do not show such close correspondence in respect of phasic activity. but this is undoubtedly due to the assumption that no antagonistic activity occurs between these groups. There was only one case where the Mark II model was found to have problems; for one subject at very late stance the Tc. joint force passed marginally outside the joint bounds as defined by the cadaver studies. It may have been that this subject had slightly larger Tc. joint profiles than suggested by the cadaver study. Unfortunately an X-ray study of normal subjects was not possible. The probable error due to anthropometric\ariation and the assumed load sharing between muscle groups
cu]atcd

Table I. Magnltudesandphnsingofthepeak

resultant

forces

634

P. PaocTEa

and J.

P.

PALL

force was less than 0.2 B.FV. and that it was only active for the first lo, of stance phase (a result clearly at variance with the findings of the present study). The analysis presented in this paper is considsrably simpler than that required for joints higher in the leg where inertial contributions of the limb segments must be taken into account. The Mark II model shows promise as a suitable vehicle for the study of effects of ankle pathology upon gait. and may be useful in the assessment of different types of ankle endoprostheses. This model was used to investigate the behaviour of the normal ankle joint whilst walking upon planes sloping sideways at + 10 and the results of this study aill be published in a later paper. A Mark III model which includes the medial and lateral collateral ligaments of the ankle is currently under development.
Fig. 10. A comparison between the temporal activity of the in the Mark II model and that reported horn EMG studies.

muscle groups

Acli,lo,vle~llleatp,lrs-This

work

is part

oi a Ph.D

thesis

was thought to be no worse than & lO_15?/,. The variation due to natural fluctuations in gait determinants was estimated as + IOib. This gave an overall estimate ofvariation due to experimental error, cadaver anthropometric data and individual subject variability of *20-25x.

recently submitted to the University of Strathclyde (Procter, 1980). The authors wish to acknowledge the support of a British Science Research Council studentship during this study.

REFERESCES Barbenel, J. C. (1972) The biomechanics dibular joint-a theoretical study. 251-256. of the temperomanJ. Bi~rnechratic~s 5,

CONCLUDING

COMMEKTS

Bresler, B. and Frankel. J. P. (1950) The forces and moments in the leg during level walking. Trcots. Am. Sot. rrteclt. Enyrs 12, 27-36.

The Mark I model was physiologically unacceptable in respect of Tc. joint force loading. The Mark II model, a more realistic representation of the ankle joint musculoskeletal system, gave acceptable solutions for stance phase joint and muscle forces without the inclusion of ligamentous constraint. It might be expected that in level surface walking ligamentous loading would be minimal. The peak joint force for the Tc. joint, 3.9 B.W. mean (2.9-4.7 B.W. range), is somewhat less than that reported by Brewster et al. (1974) (4.5-5.0 B.W.); the same source reported 3.5 B.W. mean peak achilles tendon force compared with 2.5 B.W. mean in the present study. These differences may be due to different walking velocities or to assumptions necessary in the two-dimensional analysis of Brewster and colleagues regarding Tc. axis orientation and position. The differences may be due in part to the problem of relating the external force system to internal structures whose exact position can only be estimated ; this is a general problem that affects all such studies.
The tibia1 present activity, study indicates substantial anterior

Brewster, R. C., Chao, E. Y. and StauNer, R. Sv. (1974) Force analysis of the ankle joint during the stance phase of gait. 1171/r
A.C.E.M.B. Alliance for Engineers, Philadelphia. Hicks, J. H. (1953) The mechanics of the foot. I-the joints. J. Awr. 87, 345-357. tnman, V. T. (1976) The Joiuts ojrhe Ankle. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore. Isman, R. E. and Inman. V. T. (1969) Anthropometric studies of the human foot and ankle. Bull. prosth. Rex IO! II, 97-129. Manter, J. T. (1941) Movements of the subtalar and transverse tarsal joints. Amrt. Rec. 80, 397-410. Morrison, J. B. (1970) The mechanics of the knee joint in relation to normal walking. J. Biwnechmcs 3, 51-61. Nigg, B. M., Denoth, J. and Neukomm, P. A. t 1979)The load on the upper extremities in selected sports activities. Int. Symp. Man Under Vibration. Udine. Italy. Procter, P. (1980) Ankle joint biomechanics. Ph.D thesis. University of Strathclyde. Glasgow. Root, M. L., Orien, W. P. and Weed. J. H. (19-l I Sormal and abnormal function of the foot. In C/itti& Biomechics. Vol. 2. Clinical Biomechanics Corporation. Los Angeles. StauNer. R. N.. Chao. E. Y. and Brewster. R. C. (19771 Force and motion analysis of the normal. diseased and prosthetic ankle joint. C/h. Orthop. 127, 1899196. University of California (1953) The pattern of muscular activity in the lower extremity during v.~lking. frosrlt. Del,/ Res. Proj. Iasr. Engag Res. Lrtir. Co/$ Berkziex. Ser. Il. Iss. 25. Warwick, F. and Williams. P. L. (1973) (Editors) Grtqs Amrrmn~ 35th Ed. Longman. London. Yeo, B. P. (1976) Investigations concerning the principle of minimal muscular force. J. Bionwchtuti~ s 9. II 3-416. Zarrugh, M. Y. and RadcliNe. C. W. (1979) Computer generation of human gait kinematics. J. Bicv?feclrLl/lics12. 99-111.

forces of 1.OB.W. mean peak were estimated and the group was active up to 25/, stance on average. The model of Brewster et al. did not include this group, the calf group apparently being active for the whole of stance phase. A later model used by Stauffer et al. (1977) neglected the contribution of the anterior tibia1 group on the grounds that its peak