No announcement yet.

Re: Terminology of joint forces

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Terminology of joint forces

    Dear Biomch-L readers:

    I agree with Paolo de Leva that "net joint force" or
    "resultant joint force" or simply "joint force" are all good names
    for the sum of all the forces made by one segment on its neighbor.

    As Paolo points out, defining "action" and "reaction"
    sometimes is a chicken-and-egg problem, so I believe that it probably
    is best to stay away from using those terms ("Joint REACTION force"
    probably is not a good name for anything.)

    Paolo proposed breaking down the net joint force into three
    or even four parts. That could be alright, except that it is already
    difficult enough to break the net joint force into TWO parts! Almost
    always we will keep calculating (as before) the values of the total
    force and of its two usual parts [the traditional "muscle-produced
    force" and "bone-on-bone force" -- the latter actually including
    bone-on-bone, as well as (erroneously, considering its name) ligament
    forces and other forces]. The TERMINOLOGY is what we are trying to
    change. If we followed Paolo's suggestion (and broke the total force
    down into 3 or 4 parts), then we would almost always have to report
    the value of a parameter defined as "F2+F3+F4", and that would be
    awkward. So instead, I would rather have a FIRST breakdown of the
    total force into two parts (the "traditional" breakdown), and later
    on possibly breaking those two parts into further subdivisions (along
    the lines that Paolo proposed), but ONLY IF actual numerical values
    can be calculated for all of the separate elements in those further
    subdivisions. In other words, I think it would still be useful to
    have a name for the entire "non-muscle" part of the joint force.

    That brings us back to Rick's original question, what names
    should we use for the total force and for its two traditional parts.
    Paolo's term "passive binding force" gave me an idea.

    How about "passive joint force" for the non-muscular part of
    the net joint force? Even though it can be argued that the
    bone-on-bone force (and even the "passive binding forces" that Paolo
    proposes) sometimes could be called "active" instead of passive, we
    would probably agree that their "activeness" is much less direct than
    the activeness of a muscle. So, in a relative sense at least, we
    could refer to the bone-on-bone forces and also to the forces made by
    ligaments and by other structures (Paolo's F3+F4) as "passive"
    forces, and to the muscle forces as "active" forces.

    So here is my terminology proposal:

    (a) "net joint force" or "resultant joint force" or simply
    "joint force": The sum of all the forces made by a segment on its
    neighbor. This force can be broken down into two components, b and

    (b) "active joint force": The sum of all the muscular
    forces made by the segment on its neighbor through the muscles.

    (c) "passive joint force": The rest of the force made by
    the segment on its neighbor (through bones, ligaments, capsule and
    other structures).

    Jesus Dapena