1998
DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9290(98)00033-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparative study of impact dynamics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 141 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The frequent presence of uncharacteristic oscillations in the internal joint load estimations derived in numerous kinetic analyses conducted using rigid body and inverse dynamic assumptions [16,22] had however questioned the assumption of whole body rigidity, particularly for dynamic impacts. In 1998, Gruber, and colleagues [43] conducted an innovative theoretical study to specifically examine the potential limitations of inverse dynamic analyses and rigid body assumptions on load estimations during a gymnastic-style drop landing. Gruber and colleagues [43] reported that rigid body assumptions yielded completely incorrect predictions of internal joint loads during the impact phase such that hip joint torques may be three to four times too large.…”
Section: Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The frequent presence of uncharacteristic oscillations in the internal joint load estimations derived in numerous kinetic analyses conducted using rigid body and inverse dynamic assumptions [16,22] had however questioned the assumption of whole body rigidity, particularly for dynamic impacts. In 1998, Gruber, and colleagues [43] conducted an innovative theoretical study to specifically examine the potential limitations of inverse dynamic analyses and rigid body assumptions on load estimations during a gymnastic-style drop landing. Gruber and colleagues [43] reported that rigid body assumptions yielded completely incorrect predictions of internal joint loads during the impact phase such that hip joint torques may be three to four times too large.…”
Section: Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In 1998, Gruber, and colleagues [43] conducted an innovative theoretical study to specifically examine the potential limitations of inverse dynamic analyses and rigid body assumptions on load estimations during a gymnastic-style drop landing. Gruber and colleagues [43] reported that rigid body assumptions yielded completely incorrect predictions of internal joint loads during the impact phase such that hip joint torques may be three to four times too large. More realistic skeleto-mechanical models of impact landings that incorporate soft tissue properties have subsequently become more evident in the literature over the past decade.…”
Section: Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, soft-tissue dynamics plays an important role, especially in joint dynamics during impacts by reducing joint loads and passively dissipating energy [14]. For example, a wobbling mass model of landing from a drop better reproduced the vertical ground reaction force than a rigid body model did and had lower joint forces and torques [1].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, the starting point is the coarse discretisation of a human into 16 parts by Hanavan [1], which is numerically discretised as a MBS using DySim/Calcman3D as is described in [2]. In order to account for the passive behaviour of the connective tissues attached to the coarse body parts, so-called "wobbling masses" are introduced by [3,4]. Moreover, the part of the coarse Hanavan model that represents the lumbar spine is replaced by five vertebrae L1-L5 as well as four IVD in between, where the latter are spatially resolved using the FE model (FEM) of [5,6] which is based on the Theory of Porous Media (TPM).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%