Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Indeterminate Structure

Indeterminate Structure

Indeterminate structures refer to structures where internal forces and reactions cannot be determined using only the equations of static equilibrium. Indeterminate structures have more unknown forces and reaction forces than equations of static equilibrium that can be used to determine them. Indeterminate structures are often used in engineering to create complex, efficient, and aesthetically pleasing structures. There are various types of indeterminate structures used in engineering and...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Influence of a head-turned position on landing movement patterns: a crossover trial.

BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation·2026

Same author

Genetic and Environmental Effects on BMI Fluctuation Across the Adult Life Course and Its Associations With Baseline BMI and BMI Change: An Individual-Based Study of 14 Longitudinal Twin Cohorts.

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism·2026

Same author

Genetic and environmental influences on educational disparities in adult weight change: an individual-based pooled analysis of 11 twin cohorts.

International journal of obesity (2005)·2026

Same author

Running with and without blood flow restriction on fatigability and biomechanics: a cross-over trial.

Sports biomechanics·2026

Same author

Patient-reported outcome measure comparison of two cemented primary total hip arthroplasty implant combinations for osteoarthritis: a regional New Zealand study.

European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie·2026

Same author

Reliability of medial versus lateral video analysis for footstrike assessment in treadmill and overground running.

Journal of biomechanics·2026

Same journal

Age-related adaptations in acceleration and deceleration control during gait.

Journal of biomechanics·2026

Same journal

Regional mechanical differences in hamstring muscles after removal of surrounding connective tissue.

Journal of biomechanics·2026

Same journal

A novel knee joint laxity measurement device in mice.

Journal of biomechanics·2026

Same journal

Influence of iliofemoral ligament laxity on hip joint contact forces during gait.

Journal of biomechanics·2026

Same journal

Associations of sagittal spinal alignment with shear wave velocity, thickness, and echo intensity of muscles attached to the spine and pelvis in healthy women.

Journal of biomechanics·2026

Same journal

The gait lab effect: symmetry restoration strategy after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is different in natural environments than the gait laboratory.

Journal of biomechanics·2026

See all related articles

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 6, 2026

Measuring Ascending Aortic Stiffness In Vivo in Mice Using Ultrasound

Measuring Ascending Aortic Stiffness In Vivo in Mice Using Ultrasound

Published on: December 2, 2014

Leg stiffness measures depend on computational method.

Kim Hébert-Losier¹, Anders Eriksson²

¹Swedish Winter Sports Research Centre, Department of Health Sciences, Mid Sweden University, Kunskapens väg 8, Hus D, 83125 Östersund, Sweden.

Journal of Biomechanics

|November 6, 2013

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Calculating leg stiffness from hopping requires careful method selection. Different computational approaches yield varying results, highlighting the need to specify the exact method used for accurate biomechanical analysis.

Keywords:

Biomechanics Locomotion Lower-extremity Methodology Spring–mass model

More Related Videos

Measuring the Stiffness of Ex Vivo Mouse Aortas Using Atomic Force Microscopy

Measuring the Stiffness of Ex Vivo Mouse Aortas Using Atomic Force Microscopy

Published on: October 19, 2016

Methods to Quantify Pharmacologically Induced Alterations in Motor Function in Human Incomplete SCI

Methods to Quantify Pharmacologically Induced Alterations in Motor Function in Human Incomplete SCI

Published on: April 18, 2011

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 6, 2026

Measuring Ascending Aortic Stiffness In Vivo in Mice Using Ultrasound

Measuring Ascending Aortic Stiffness In Vivo in Mice Using Ultrasound

Published on: December 2, 2014

Measuring the Stiffness of Ex Vivo Mouse Aortas Using Atomic Force Microscopy

Measuring the Stiffness of Ex Vivo Mouse Aortas Using Atomic Force Microscopy

Published on: October 19, 2016

Methods to Quantify Pharmacologically Induced Alterations in Motor Function in Human Incomplete SCI

Methods to Quantify Pharmacologically Induced Alterations in Motor Function in Human Incomplete SCI

Published on: April 18, 2011

Area of Science:

Biomechanics
Human Movement Analysis
Sports Science

Background:

Leg stiffness is crucial for estimating lower-extremity force resistance during locomotion.
It's commonly calculated from ground reaction force (GRF) data during vertical hops.
Leg stiffness is a key parameter in spring-mass models of human movement.

Purpose of the Study:

To evaluate 13 different computational methods for determining leg stiffness from GRF data during repetitive hopping.
To compare the consistency and accuracy of these methods across subjects with varying leg stiffness characteristics.
To identify the influence of different integration constants and mathematical expressions on calculated stiffness values.

Main Methods:

Utilized ground reaction force (GRF) data from a double-legged repetitive hopping task.
Employed 12 methods based on double integration of GRF, varying velocity integration constants and mathematical expressions.
Included one frequency-based method incorporating ground contact times.

Main Results:

All 13 methods produced different leg stiffness values for the same individual.
Variations in stiffness calculations were consistent across subjects exhibiting extreme biomechanical traits.
The frequency-based method tended to overestimate stiffness, while double integration methods showed more consistency.
The choice of integration constant and mathematical expression significantly impacted double integration results.

Conclusions:

Computational methods significantly affect calculated leg stiffness values.
Specifying the precise method, including integration constants and mathematical expressions, is essential for reporting leg stiffness.
Methods involving a zero center of mass at takeoff and weighted averaging of force/displacement curves offered greater consistency.