Thomas Lee - A761359

Technical Note

PERFORMING A SYNCHRONISED QUASI-STATIC ANALYSIS OF A

DROP JUMP AND SQUAT JUMP

Thomas Lee (A761359)

School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences,
Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK

Abstract
This paper provides a comparison and review of four methods of calculating vertical jump height for two
countermovement jumps (squat jump and drop jump) along with a review of a method for calculating lower
body joint moments. The methods for recording and synchronising force plate and video data are described
along with any issues arising from these or the use of quasi-static analysis. The results indicate that different
methods are preferential for different jump types. The use of total flight time is best for drop jump analysis
however takeoff and landing body positions affect the accuracy. The use of displacement data is the least
accurate for squat jumps due to integration errors and the other three methods all provide relatively accurate
results. The joint moment method provides good results and is a reliable method of calculation. Many issues
with the methods and procedures are highlighted, however it is felt that good results may be achieved if these are
taken into consideration and minimized where possible.

Introduction
references; Baca, 1999) and analysis of
Vertical jumping performance is crucial in
methods have been undertaken by several
many sporting activities thus the
researchers (Hatze, 1998; Street et al.,
biomechanical analysis is important.
2001). Central to these methods are the use
Previous studies of vertical jumping have
of Newton’s laws of motion and the
looked at the benefits associated with
equations of constant acceleration
training type (Bosco & Pittera, 1982),
(Bartlett, 2001; Nigg & Herzog, 2002).
muscle activation (Luhtanen & Komi,
A popular study method is quasi-
1978; Bobbert et al, 1986), joint
static analysis, whereby movement is
contributions (Hubley and wells, 1983) and
broken down into a series of stills allowing
explosive power (Rahmani et al, 2000;
the ground reaction force at each point to
Samozino et al., 2008).
be analysed and moments to be calculated
Various methods of calculating
using inverse dynamics (Robertson et al.,
jump height have been utilised (c.f. above
2004). Elftman (1939) and later Winter et

1
Thomas Lee - A761359
al. (1976) developed the idea of a linked,
rigid segment model to represent the
performer. This along with Dempster’s
(1955) segmental masses provides the
basis of our study.
The use of synchronised data is
common in biomechanical analysis
(Kerwin, 1987; Van de Helm & Veeger,
1996) and is suggested by Loughborough
University’s Force Measurement Guide
(LUFMG). The aim of this study is to
compare and evaluate four methods of
calculating vertical jump height and one
method of calculating lower joint moments
using synchronised force and video data
and a quasi-static approach.
Methods
Overview
Two countermovement jumps were
analysed; drop jump (DJ) and squat jump
(SJ). No technique was specified except
that the performer should takeoff/land on
two feet and should step rather than jump
off the drop jump boxes. The drop Jump
started from a height of 45cm. Only one
performance of each jump was analyzed.
Subject
One male athlete performed both jumps.
The jumps were performed on consecutive
weeks therefore the athletes mass varied
between jumps. This variation was
considered in all calculations. The athlete
stood perpendicular to the camera angle so
that is profile was visible. Markers were
positioned on the athlete to assist
digitisation. These were placed on the toe,
ankle, knee, hip, wrist, elbow and shoulder
joint centres. Along with this the vertex
was digitised.
Procedures
For jump analysis, both video and force
data needed to be recorded for each jump.
The force data was collected using a
Kistler force plate (9281B11 series) at
1000Hz. A 16 bit analogue to digital
converter was used to transfer the data into
a useable format which was then stored on
Bioware and subsequently Microsoft
Excel. Five seconds of force data were
recorded for the drop jump and three
seconds for the squat jump. Video
recordings were made for each jump using
a Panasonic NVGS200 at a rate of 50
frames/sec and a high shutter speed
(1/1000). Calibration data was gathered
each week allowing x and y scale factors to
be calculated. The video image was
digitised using SilconCoach to create a 6
segment model of the performer. The
digitised segment data along with the scale
factors and Dempster’s (1955) segmental
data allowed the performers centre of mass
position throughout the jump to be
calculated in meters. The performer’s body
2
Thomas Lee - A761359

weight was deducted from the force data equation below was used to calculate jump
and impulse was calculated using: height:

Impulse = Force x Time s = ut + ½ gt² (1)

Two force corrections were made in order
to reduce noise using:
Correction = Total impulse / Total Time
s = Jump height (m); u = initial velocity (m.secˉ¹); t
= flight time from peak to landing (sec); g =
acceleration due to gravity (-9.81m.secˉ²). n.b.
these are the same for all equations below unless
stated.

Centre of mass (COM) acceleration was Method 2 uses the takeoff velocity from
calculated from the corrected force data the COM velocity-time graph (Fig.1). The
nd
using Newton’s 2 Law. This was equation below is then used to calculate
integrated using the trapezium rule jump height:
(LUFMG) to give velocity and
displacement. v² = u² + 2as (2)

Synchronisation v = velocity at peak (zero)

Timing lights were placed in the field of
(a)
view to synchronise the force and video
data. For each jump a synchronisation
offset was calculated.
4
Jump Height
Four methods were used to calculate jump
height. Methods 2 and 3 assume total
impulse is equal to zero thus do not work 3
(b)

for the DJ as the performer has the initial

drop onto the force plate. 3
Method 1 uses total flight time
taken directly from the force data to
calculate height. Flight time is correct to
2
0.001sec. Total flight time was halved to
correspond to peak jump height. The
2
1
3

1
Thomas Lee - A761359
Fig.1. COM velocity against time for a) squat jump
and b) drop jump. Y-axis represents velocity
(m.secˉ¹) and x-axis is time (sec)
Method 3 takes the jump height directly
from the COM displacement data
calculated by integrating velocity.
Method 4 uses takeoff velocity
calculated from the impulse data. This
method varies for the two jumps. For SJ
the equation below is used to calculate
velocity at takeoff:
FT = m (v – u) (3)
FT = impulse prior to takeoff (N.s); u = velocity
prior to movement (zero); v = velocity at takeoff
(m.secˉ¹)
The takeoff velocity calculated is then used
as u in equation (2) to calculate height
jumped.
The DJ is slightly more complex as
the weight integral needs to be taken out
and the initial velocity does not equal zero.
Thus the equation below is used to
calculate velocity at takeoff (v):
FT – mgt = m (v – u) (4)
FT = impulse whilst in contact with the force plate
before takeoff (N.s); u = initial contact velocity
(m.secˉ¹); v = takeoff velocity (m.secˉ¹)
The digitised COM data was differentiated
to calculate the initial contact velocity.
From this the takeoff velocity could be
calculated and equation (2) used to
calculate height reached.
Quasistatic analysis of moments
The ground reaction force vector method
was used to calculate moments about the
hip, knee and ankle along with the total
support moment during each jump. The
digitised data, along with the scale factors,
centre of pressure (COP) values and centre
of force plate co-ordinates were used to
calculate the distances of the joints from
the COP. The total moment (M) about each
joint was then calculated using:
M = Fz (ay – Ay) + (Fy x Az) (5)
Fz (ay – Ay) = moment of Fz about joint, Fy x Az =
moment of Fy about joint
Total support moment was calculated by
summing the moments about the hip, knee
and ankle.
Results
Jump Height
The results of the methods for both jumps
can be seen in Table 1. The mean of the
four SJ methods was 0.4479m ± 0.0598;
however the method 3 result is 0.0896m
above this mean and 0.115m bigger than
the second largest. With the method 3
height removed the mean drops to
0.4181m ± 0.0039. Methods 1, 2 and 3
vary by only 0.0068m or 1.6%.
4
Thomas Lee - A761359

The DJ results are more limited as landing whereas the squat jump gradually
only method 1 and 4 can be used. These increases until takeoff.
vary by c.a.0.2m or 40% suggesting that
one is has significant errors. The video
(a)
footage suggests that method 1 is the more
accurate of the 2 and that method 4 has
some serious errors. 400
Table 1. Jump heights calculated for the drop and
squat jumps using the four different methods.

300
Drop Jump Squat Jump
Method (m) (m) (b)
1 0.4012 0.4225
2
3
4
N/A
N/A
0.6019
0.4157
0.5375
0.4159
1000
Moments
For both SJ and DJ the moments about the
hip, knee and ankle follow what would be
200
expected; the knee rotates in the opposite
direction to the others throughout (Fig.2).
800
Fig.2. Moments about the hip, ankle and knee
shown by the black, grey and dotted lines
respectively. a) shows the results for the squat jump
The joint moments also have similar values
and b) the drop jump. The x-axis represents time
in both jumps at takeoff c.a.400N (hip),
100
(sec’s) and the y-axis moment (Newton’s).
200N (ankle), -200N (knee). The joint
moments in SJ gradually increase up until
peak at takeoff, but DJ moments increase
600
at a much greater rate with the hip
achieving a maximum when landing on the
force plate prior to the jump (c.a.900N). In
both the jumps, the hip experiences the
0
400
0.5

0.6

greatest moments.
The total support moments (TSM)
show a similar pattern, however the TSM
for DJ is relatively constant after the initial
-100
200 5
Thomas Lee - A761359

(a)
In method 1 it is assumed that the

500
athletes COM height is the same at takeoff
and landing. However Hatze (1998)
identifies that leg joints are often more
flexed on landing then takeoff, lowering
COM height on landing. As a result peak

400 (b)
jump height does not correlate to mid
flight time and jump height is

1200
underestimated.
In methods 2 and 4 takeoff was
assumed to be when the toes left the

300 ground, however maximum takeoff

velocity occurs prior to heel lift-off (Pandy

1000
Fig.3. Total support moment in relation to time for
et al., 1990). As a result jump heights may
be underestimated.
a) squat jump and b) drop jump. The x-axis

200
In DJ the error in method 4 stems
represents time (secs) and the y-axis moment
from digitising as the takeoff velocity is
(Newton’s).
calculated from this. Issues with the

800 Discussion
The SJ results indicate that method 3 is
digitising include the markers moving on
top of the skin and not representing the

100
poor for this jump type. The reason being
that the COM displacement data is
actual joint centres (Nigg & Herzog,
2002), the markers being difficult to see

600
especially at the hip due to the arms
calculated by integrating twice leading to
blocking the view on several frames and
error magnification (Integration error also
inaccuracies from the human using the

0
occurs in method 2). Integration error
programme. This data was also
could be reduced by using a higher force
differentiated which amplified any errors
plate recording frequency, reducing the
0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

400
finite time interval (Bartlett,
however this may lead to a surplus of data
2001);
(Bartlett, 2001) and the impulse data came
from Bioware so was uncorrected.

-100
Furthermore Dempster’s (1955) segmental
(LUFMG). The other methods provided
parameters were used but these are not
good results but still had some differences
subject specific and thus could affect the

200
which were attributable to various factors.
results.

-200 6
Thomas Lee - A761359
The moment data corresponds with
findings by other researchers, such as Ford
et al. (2009), however they suggest that hip
and knee joint moments were the main
predictor of vertical jump height, whereas
our results indicate the ankle also plays a
crucial role, having similar moments to the
knee. The lack of smoothness of the
moment curves is a result of digitisation
errors. Quasi-static methods work best on
slower movements as the differences
between data points is reduced. As DJ is
the more dynamic, the SJ results should be
more accurate. The ability of the ground
reaction force vector method to predict
moments higher up the body is
questionable and its inability to calculate
moments during non-load bearing
situations are clear shortcomings of the
method (Winter, 1990).
Various procedural issues can be
highlighted for future studies. The timing
lights were positioned incorrectly in the SJ
therefore only 17 of 20 were visible,
resulting in the synchronisation possibly
being out by 0.003secs. A higher video
recording frequency could be used, such as
100Hz used by Bobbert et al. (1986),
allowing greater accuracy in finding
takeoff. By using a marker image system
to automatically gather the joint co-
ordinates, human digitising error and time
to process the data could have been
minimised (Nigg & Herzog, 2002).
Furthermore, jumping technique was not
specified; the athlete swung his arms
affecting digitising ability and possibly the
COM heights (Hara et al., 2006). To get
accurate results and allow jump
comparison the arms should be placed on
the hip or chest (c.f. Pandy et al, 1990;
Samozino et al., 2008).
This paper has described and
evaluated methods of calculating jump
height and joint moments for two different
countermovement jumps. The results
suggest that different methods are suitable
for different jumps. If the issues raised are
taken into consideration and minimised
where possible, good results for both jump
height and lower joint moments may be
achieved.
References
Baca, A., 1999. A comparison of methods
for analyzing drop jump performance.
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., 31 (3): 437 – 442
Bartlett, R., 2001. Introduction to sports
biomechanics. Routledge, Oxon
Bobbert, M.F., Mackay, M.,
Schinkelshoek, D., Huijing, P.A. & van
Ingen Schenau, G.J., 1986. Biomechanical
analysis of drop and countermovement
jumps. European Journal of Applied
Physiology, 54: 566 – 573
7
Thomas Lee - A761359

Bosco, C. & Pittera, C., 1982. Zur jump performance. European Journal of
Trainingswirkung neuentwickelter Applied Physiology, 50: 247 – 254
Sprungiibungen auf die Explosivkraft.
Leistungssport, 12: 36 – 39 Kerwin, D.G., 1987. A laboratory interface
for use in biomechanical data collection
Dempster, W., 1955. Space requirements and analysis, with an application for the
of the seated operator. Wright-Patterson determination of total body support
Air Force Base, OH, WADC-TR-55-159 moments in walking and running.
Proceedings of the sports biomechanics
Elftman, H., 1939. Forces and energy section of the British association of sports
changes in the leg during walking. sciences, No. 12
American journal of physiology, 125: 339
– 356 LUFMG – Force Measurement.
Loughborough University, department of
Ford, K.R., Myer, G.D., Brent, J.L. & physical education, sports science and
Hewett, T.E., 2009. Hip and knee extensor recreation management, Sport
moments predict vertical jump height in Biomechanics
adolescent girls. Journal of strength and
conditioning research, 23(4): 1327 – 1331 Luhtanen, P. & Komi, P.V., 1978.
Segmental contribution to forces in vertical
Hara, M., Shibayama, A., Takeshita, D. & jump. European Journal of Applied
Fukashiro, S., 2006. The effect of arm Physiology, 38: 181 – 188
swing on lower extremities in vertical
jumping. Journal of biomechanics, 39: Nigg, M. & Herzog, W., 2002.
2503 – 2511 Biomechanics of the musculoskeletal
system. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester
Hatze, H., 1998. Validity and reliability of
methods for testing vertical jumping Pandy, M.G., Zajac, F.E., Sim, E. &
performance. Journal of applied Levine, W.S., 1990. An optimal control
biomechanics, 14: 127 – 140 model for maximum-height human
jumping. Journal of biomechanic, 23 (12):
Hubley, C.L. & Wells, R.P., 1983. A 1185 – 1198
work-energy approach to determine
individual joint contributions to vertical

8
Thomas Lee - A761359

Rahmani, A., Dalleau, G., Viale, F., Biomechanics V-A, Edited by Komi, P.V.
Hautier, C.A. & Lacour, J.R., 2000. University Park Press, Baltimore, 334 –
Validity and reliability of a kinematic 340
device for measuring the force developed
during squatting. Journal of Applied
Biomechanics 16: 26 – 35

Robertson, D.G.E., Caldwell, G.E., Hamill,

J., Kamen, G. & Whittlesey, S.N., 2004.
Research methods in biomechanics.
Human Kinetics, Leeds

Samozino, P., Morin, J.P., Hintzy, F. &

Belli, A. 2008. A simple method for
measuring force, velocity and power
output during squat jump. Journal of
Biomechanics, 41: 2940 – 2945

Street, G., McMillan, S., Board, W.,

Rasmussen, M. & Heneghan, J.M., 2001.
Sources of error in determining
countermovement jump height with
impulse method. Journal of applied
biomechanics, 17: 43 – 54

Van de Helm, F.C.T. & Veeger, H.E.J.,

1996. Quasi-static analysis of muscle
forces in the shoulder mechanism during
wheelchair propulsion. Journal of
biomechanics, 29 (1): 39 – 52

Winter, D.A., Quanbury, A.O. & Reimer,

G.D., 1976. Instantaneous energy and
power flow in gait of normals.