Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Senior Portfolio - Juniorfinalresearchpaper
Senior Portfolio - Juniorfinalresearchpaper
Senior Portfolio - Juniorfinalresearchpaper
Physics
11B
Table of Contents
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................28
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................31
The Observation on the Magnitude of Force on Knees During Walking, Jogging, and
Sprinting
This experiment was conducted to test the effects of different running speeds on the force
exertion on knees. It was predicted that sprinting would cause the most acceleration and
therefore the highest force on a knee. By studying the differences in the magnitude of force on
knees between three different stages of running, more people will be knowledgeable on the topic,
subject. The test subject then either walked, jogged, or sprinted depending on the trial. The
acceleration was then recorded into a Logger Pro Lab Quest, and the data was taken to conduct a
two-sample t test. A two-sample t test was conducted to compare the mean accelerations between
The hypothesis stated that the sprinting stage would yield the greatest magnitude of force.
This statement was accepted because all the p-values were less than the alpha level of 0.05. This
statement was further supported by the fact that the sprinting stage had the highest acceleration at
53.05 m/s2, followed by the jogging stage at an acceleration of 31.8 m/s2, and lastly the walking
stage at an acceleration of 12.72 m/s2. This explained why the sprinting stage yielded the
Overall, this data supports how sprinting is detrimental to knees and overtime can cause
many injuries that runners should be aware of so they will be more careful.
Hinz-Orlando 4
Introduction
Twist! Pop! Crack! In a split second, knee injuries change the lives of people
every day. Whether its a minor sprain or a torn ligament, the incident always leaves a
syndrome, or runners knee. This injury happens when the patella is pulled out of place
To combat these injuries, one needs to decrease the amount of force exerted on
his or her knees. This could be done with a combination of many techniques, but one
walking, jogging, or sprinting - would yield the greatest amount of force on the knee. By
using this knowledge, more people will be aware of how much more force is exerted on
the knee while sprinting compared to walking or jogging. This information will be useful
subject. The Logger Pro Lab Quest was then used to collect the data from the
accelerometer and created a graph. When analyzing the data, the positive acceleration
points during each trial were averaged together. Then all 34 trials were averaged together,
giving each overall mean acceleration from the walking, jogging, and sprinting stages.
These averages were used to conduct three separate two-sample t-tests to compare the
knee accelerations of each running stage to one another. The acceleration during the
Understanding how force and acceleration are related is important when dealing
with athletes. As the acceleration of a knee increases, so does the force on the knee.
Walking can cause a force exertion of up to three times ones body weight on your knees
while running may cause a force exertion of up to five and a half times ones body weight
(Matte). This explains how athletes often have pain when they run for extended periods
of time. After a while, the force on the knees becomes too much and this leads to knee
It can be seen that the femur rubs against the patella causing the cartilage between the
two areas to disappear until the two bones are touching each other. This causes extreme
It is very easy for people to get this injury and others. People who run daily
slowly wear away the cartilage causing major damage. The research being conducted will
Hinz-Orlando 6
show what stage of running puts the most force on a knee. In order to lessen the affects
running has on knees a person should spend less time running at the speed that causes the
most force. Most runners would not do this because they want to be as fast as possible.
Runners instead can choose to improve their running technique and make sure that they
are running in the proper way to lessen the extent of injuries. In the end, running will
cause many issues in knees, but people love it and will not stop. This research will show
how detrimental each type of motion is and how much force is put on the knee while
running.
Hinz-Orlando 7
Review of Literature
walking, jogging, or sprinting - would yield the greatest magnitude of force on a knee.
Force, which is a push or pull on an object from its interaction with another
object, is equal to the product of the mass and acceleration of the object in question
(Meaning of Force). The equation stated below is used in determining the magnitude of
force on knees where F stands for Force, m stands for mass, and a stands for acceleration.
F = ma
found. Since F=ma, as the acceleration increases, the force will also increase at the same
rate. Acceleration is the change in velocity of an object. To find it, use the equation stated
below.
( )
A= =
In the equation above, A stands for acceleration, V stands for the change in
velocity which is the final velocity minus the initial velocity, and T stands for the time
(Elert).
Walking 3.0
Jogging 4.0
Sprinting 5.5
Hinz-Orlando 8
Table 1 shows the different force loads exerted on a knee during the three stages
of running. The number values correspond to how much force was being exerted on the
knee at that stage. For example, when walking, forces up to 3 times ones body weight is
that refers to "the rate at which an object changes its position" (Speed and Velocity).
The velocity of an object is found using the equation shown below. In this equation,
velocity V is equal to the change in position P which is the distance between the starting
point and the finishing point over the time it takes to complete that trial T. The velocity
function is also known as the total distance walked, jogged, or sprinted D over the time it
P
V= =
It was hypothesized that the sprinting velocity would yield the greatest amount of
force on the knee. To come up with this statement, the equation F=ma was used. Since
force and acceleration are directly related, as the acceleration increased, the force
increased as well. This showed that at greater velocities, the acceleration would rise
causing the magnitude of force to increase. So the faster the knee moves, the greater
Running Speed, and Striking Style on the Maximum Acceleration of the Knee. This
experiment was a senior research project done at the Macomb Mathematics Science and
Technology Center by Ryan Bisson and Haley Hilliard class of 2012. This experiment
compared multiple factors and observed the different knee forces generated by the
Hinz-Orlando 9
factors. Bisson and Hilliards experiment is similar to this one because it observed how
that it only used jogging and running as the velocity factors on the knee forces. Bisson
and Hilliards experiment concluded that the fastest running speeding yielded the greatest
Overall, as the velocity of a runner increases, the force on the knee increases as
well. To refer back to figure 1, if the force load multiplied by the body weight value is
high, the amount of force will be high also. Therefore, this shows that sprinting produces
the most force on knees because its force multiplied by the body weight value is the
highest. Sprinting also exerts the most force because it produces the highest acceleration.
As stated earlier F=ma, so if acceleration is greater, the force on the knee is greater too.
In all, if the velocity of a runner increases, the acceleration increases, which causes an
Problem Statement
Problem:
To test the effects of different running speeds on the force exertion on knees.
Hypothesis:
The highest running speed or highest acceleration will cause the most force to be
Data Measured:
In this experiment, the independent variable was running speed with the following
levels (walking, jogging, sprinting) and the dependent variable was the force that was
exerted on the knee. The force on the knee was calculated using the formula F=ma where
was found by strapping an accelerometer to the knee and then pacing the rate at which the
leg moves according to running speed being tested. There were 34 trials of each category-
walking, jogging, and sprinting-conducted for this experiment. These test subjects each
walked, jogged, and sprinted so the data could be recorded. Multiple two-sample t tests
were used to compare the data. Three of these tests were calculated to compare the means
of the average accelerations of walking with jogging, walking with sprinting, and jogging
with sprinting.
Hinz-Orlando 11
Experimental Design
Materials:
Procedure:
1. Put a two feet long piece of tape on the ground on the gym floor perpendicular to
the out of bounds line painted on the gym floor. This is the longer line on the
basketball court. See Figure 1 for the set up.
2. Put another two feet long piece of tape on the ground in the same fashion as stated
in step 1. This piece is 55 feet and 6 inches from the first piece of tape. See figure
1 for the set up.
7. Strap accelerometer (see Appendix B) onto the test subjects right knee as seen in
Figure 2.
10. Count down from three and have them start walking at the word Go.
11. When the test subject begins walking, they hit the play button to start the data
collection.
12. Have the test subject stop walking at the second line. Once they stop walking,
have the test subject hit the play button to end the data collection. When the
button is hit again, the amount of time recorded will be shown on the graph.
Hinz-Orlando 12
14. Repeat steps 7-13 for the jogging and running trials.
15. Once the test subject has completed all the trials, take the ACE bandage wrap off
of their knee.
18. Use the equation V = where V stands for velocity, D stands for the change in
distance, and T stands for the time.
19. The distance used is the length from the start line to the finish line. Once the
length is found plug it into the equation given in step one. This distance is
consistent for every calculation.
20. The time used is taken from the Logger Pro Lab Quest where it was recorded on
the graphs after every trial.
21. Plug all these variables into the equation and solve for the velocity for each trial.
Diagram:
Figure 3 shows the set-up for the tape on the gym floor and where to label the
Figure 4 shows how and where the accelerometer was strapped to the knee. In this
figure, the accelerometer is attached using athletic tape, but for pretrials the
Figure 5 shows how the Lab Quest was attached to the accelerometer and then
Figure 6. Materials
The figure above shows all the materials in this experiment. They were all used
Each test subject was asked to go through the different stages of running: walking,
jogging, and sprinting. The trials were recorded using a Logger Pro Lab Quest that
collected the data into a graph which can be seen in Figure 2. The hypothesis was that the
sprinting stage would yield the highest acceleration and therefore highest amount of force
on a knee. The acceleration was measured in meters per second squared (m/s2), the time
was measured in seconds, and the velocity was measured in meters per second (m/s).
Table 2
Walking Stage Data
Walking
Acceleration
Test Time Speed
of the Knee
Subject (sec) (m/s)
(m/s2)
1 10.60 16.10 1.60
2 11.24 20.70 1.51
3 13.60 14.62 1.24
4 14.82 19.60 1.14
5 12.30 16.18 1.38
6 13.02 14.68 1.30
7 12.40 19.50 1.36
8 13.80 15.97 1.23
9 11.00 27.30 1.54
10 12.02 20.70 1.41
11 10.72 17.73 1.58
12 12.12 10.91 1.40
13 12.72 11.14 1.33
14 12.12 17.35 1.40
15 15.80 7.57 1.07
16 13.12 9.59 1.29
17 11.74 9.83 1.44
18 18.74 6.40 0.90
Hinz-Orlando 16
Acceleration
Test Time Speed
of the Knee
Subject (sec) (m/s)
(m/s2)
19 16.42 8.92 1.03
20 17.94 7.04 0.94
21 14.54 10.40 1.16
22 12.30 8.33 1.38
23 13.62 8.30 1.24
24 11.90 22.30 1.42
25 14.52 10.53 1.17
26 12.20 12.41 1.39
27 12.84 7.38 1.32
28 13.92 7.31 1.22
29 12.72 6.80 1.33
30 13.80 7.81 1.23
31 15.60 6.37 1.08
32 10.90 9.75 1.55
33 17.20 7.92 0.98
34 15.84 15.19 1.07
Average: 13.47 12.72 1.28
Table 2 displays the acceleration, time, and velocity of each test subject when
they performed the walking trial. The average walking acceleration was 12.72 m/s2 with
an average time of 13.5 seconds. The time and distance walked was then used to calculate
the average velocity of 1.28 m/s. From these values it was observed that since the
acceleration was low, the force on the knee was also low. The speed re-enforces this
observation because it was slow and therefore not much force was put on the knee.
Table 3
Jogging Stage Data
Jogging
Acceleration
Test Time Speed
of the Knee
Subject (sec) (m/s)
(m/s2)
1 4.70 33.80 3.60
2 6.12 32.52 2.76
3 6.00 27.23 2.82
4 5.42 22.48 3.12
Hinz-Orlando 17
Jogging
Acceleration
Test Time Speed
of the Knee
Subject (sec) (m/s)
(m/s2)
5 6.74 32.80 2.51
6 5.86 38.23 2.89
7 5.24 67.27 3.23
8 5.74 44.47 2.95
9 6.10 39.30 2.77
10 5.70 34.40 2.97
11 5.94 44.84 2.85
12 7.00 33.23 2.42
13 7.50 29.89 2.26
14 5.84 30.96 2.90
15 8.30 32.33 2.04
16 6.00 23.48 2.82
17 5.70 21.49 2.97
18 6.52 35.44 2.59
19 8.34 17.89 2.03
20 9.94 16.90 1.70
21 7.80 26.03 2.17
22 5.90 33.79 2.87
23 5.54 24.20 3.05
24 5.14 15.02 3.29
25 6.74 28.06 2.51
26 5.52 32.58 3.06
27 6.60 27.00 2.56
28 8.42 28.45 2.01
29 6.42 19.93 2.63
30 8.30 25.13 2.04
31 6.82 24.60 2.48
32 5.84 25.48 2.90
33 9.50 61.81 1.78
34 9.00 51.21 1.88
Average: 6.65 31.83 2.63
Table 3 displays the acceleration, time, and velocity of each test subject when
they performed the jogging trial. The average jogging acceleration was 31.83 m/s2 with
an average time of 6.65 seconds. The time and distance jogged was then used to calculate
Hinz-Orlando 18
the average velocity of 2.63 m/s. From these values it was seen that since the acceleration
increased, it caused the force on the knee to increase as well. The speed re-enforces this
observation since it was a little higher than the average walking speed. This shows that
Table 4
Sprinting Stage Data
Sprinting
Acceleration
Test Time Speed
of the Knee
Subject (sec) (m/s)
(m/s2)
1 3.32 79.20 5.10
2 3.34 89.80 5.06
3 3.90 71.10 4.34
4 4.22 90.20 4.01
5 4.30 55.60 3.93
6 3.10 67.13 5.46
7 2.62 73.33 6.46
8 3.70 66.80 4.57
9 4.54 50.30 3.73
10 4.84 46.98 3.50
11 4.02 33.89 4.21
12 4.54 60.30 3.73
13 4.06 45.52 4.17
14 3.90 50.11 4.34
15 5.02 60.75 3.37
16 3.90 48.98 4.34
17 3.12 37.61 5.42
18 4.92 43.17 3.44
19 4.52 37.89 3.74
20 5.12 44.75 3.30
21 4.60 42.26 3.68
22 3.10 40.16 5.46
23 3.54 47.23 4.78
24 5.52 36.44 3.06
25 5.24 40.11 3.23
26 4.02 43.71 4.21
27 4.96 49.06 3.41
28 4.84 68.85 3.50
Hinz-Orlando 19
Sprinting
Acceleration
Test Time Speed
of the Knee
Subject (sec) (m/s)
(m/s2)
29 5.04 36.75 3.36
30 4.60 25.47 3.68
31 3.50 55.52 4.83
32 3.94 25.74 4.29
33 5.62 70.52 3.01
34 5.94 68.54 2.85
Average: 4.28 53.05 4.10
Table 4 displays the acceleration, time, and velocity of each test subject when
they performed the sprinting trial. The average sprinting acceleration was 53.05 m/s2 with
an average time of 4.28 seconds. The time and distance sprinted was then used to
calculate the average velocity of 4.10 m/s. From these values it was seen that the
acceleration increased again and caused the force on the knee to reach its largest amount.
The speed re-enforces this observation since it was greater than both the walking and
jogging velocities. This shows that the force on the knee has increased to an amount that
Table 5
Observations
Test Subject(s) Observations
Table 5 shows the observations made throughout the course of the trials. Each test
subject performed differently although there were similarities between certain groups of
subjects. There was a wide range of athletic ability anywhere from playing sports daily to
almost no physical activity at all. This gave the data more accuracy in portraying the
differences in humans.
Hinz-Orlando 22
Figure 7 displays two pictures. The left picture is a side view of how the
accelerometer was attached to the knee. The right picture is a front view. These materials
Figure 8 shows a graph that was on the screen of the Lab Quest after a walking
trial. It shows the spikes of when the test subjects knee went up and down while walking
and how fast their leg was moving while walking. When calculating the average
acceleration for the table every important value possible was used. The points circled in
red are all the points used in this trial to calculate the average. While calculating it, the
large spikes at the end due to the subject were not used because it would have caused the
data to be an inaccurate measure of the acceleration during the time the subject was
moving.
Hinz-Orlando 24
In this experiment, multiple two-sample t tests were conducted. The data collected
for acceleration was measured in meters per second squared. The data is valid because a
simple random sample was used in determining the test subjects. The trials were
randomized with a calculator, and the trials were repeated 34 times. Each sample was a
control for the other therefore lurking variables affected both equally. A total of 34 trials
were completed to show that the data was normally distributed. This is shown by the
central limit theorem which states that the data is normally distributed as long as at least
30 trials are completed. The trials were then randomized with the calculator. This
increases variability and allows on average a mean that represents the trials outcomes.
This ensured that there was no bias in the data. By randomizing the data, the order of the
trials was unknown. This led to more accurate data because it showed a wide range of
Logger Pro Lab Quest and saving the data it measured. Three different stages of running
The figure above displays the data collected in the walking and jogging trials that
was organized into box plots. The walking box plot is skewed to the right because the
median is at 10.72 while the median is at 12.72. The jogging box plot has multiple
When the box plots were observed, they appear to overlap. It can be determined
from the overlap that around 50% of the jogging data had a greater acceleration than the
walking data. The means and medians between both data sets are about 20 m/s2 in
difference. This suggests that the jogging had a slightly higher acceleration and force put
on the knee than the walking. However, a two sample t-test had to be conducted to
Ho: j = w
Ha: j > w
Figure 10. Null and Alternate Hypothesis for the Walking and Jogging Test
The figure above displays the null and alternate hypotheses for the walking and
jogging data. A two-sample t-test was conducted to determine the significance between
Hinz-Orlando 26
the sets of data. This test was appropriate because this experiment compares two sample
means from two independent populations. The null hypothesis states that the jogging
mean acceleration is equal to the walking mean acceleration. The alternative hypothesis
states that the jogging mean acceleration is greater than the walking mean acceleration.
The assumptions for the two sample t test are that the data is from random
samples, the population distributions are at least ten times the sample size, and at least
thirty trials were conducted. Nearly all of the assumptions were met. The trials were all
random and thirty-four trials were conducted which shows that the data is normally
distributed by the central limit theorem. Something to look at though, was that the
jogging data had multiple outliers which may affect the tests reliability.
Table 6
Walking and Jogging 2 Sample t test Results
Title 2-Sample t Test
t-value 8.7159
p-value 1.0731-11
xj 31.8306
xw 12.7244
sxj 11.5433
sxw 5.4893
nj 34
nw 34
Hinz-Orlando 27
The table above shows the results from the Two-Sample t test between walking
and jogging. To calculate the t value refer to Appendix C for the test, the null hypothesis,
which was that j = w, was rejected because the p-value of 21.0731E-11 is less than the
alpha value of 0.05. There is significant evidence that the walking mean acceleration is
not equal to the jogging mean. There is almost no chance that the data collected during
Table 7
Walking and Jogging 95% Confidence Interval
CLower 14.6967
CUpper 23.5156
Table 7 above shows the confidence intervals for the walking and jogging test. To
calculate the confidence intervals see Appendix D. It was said with 95% confidence that
the true mean acceleration between walking and jogging is between 14.6967 m/s2 and
Figure 11 displays the data collected in the walking and sprinting trials that was
organized into box plots. The walking box plot is skewed to the right because the median
is at 10.72 while the median is at 12.72. The sprinting box plot is also skewed to the right
When the box plots were observed, they appear to overlap only slightly. It can be
determined from the overlap that around 75% of the sprinting data had a greater
acceleration than the walking data. The means and medians between both data sets are
about 40 m/s2 in difference. This suggests that the sprinting had a much higher
acceleration and force put on the knee than the walking. However, a two sample t-test
Ho: s = w
Ha: s > w
Figure 12. Null and Alternate Hypothesis for the Walking and Sprinting Test
Figure 12 displays the null and alternate hypotheses for the walking and sprinting
data. A two-sample t test was conducted to determine the significance between the sets of
data. This test was appropriate because this experiment compares two sample means from
two independent populations. The null hypothesis states that the sprinting mean
acceleration is equal to the walking mean acceleration. The alternative hypothesis states
Table 8
Walking and Sprinting Two-Sample t Test Results
Title 2-Sample t test
t-value 13.3648
P-value 1.2-16
Hinz-Orlando 29
xs 53.0521
xw 12.7244
sxs 16.7164
sxw 5.4893
ns 34
nw 34
Table 8 shows the results from the Two-Sample t test between walking and
sprinting. To calculate the t value refer to Appendix C For the test, the null hypothesis,
which was that s = w, was rejected because the p-value of 1.2E-16 is less than the alpha
value of 0.05. There is significant evidence that the walking mean is not equal to the
sprinting mean. There is almost no chance that the data collected during this experiment
Table 9
Sprinting and Walking 95% Confidence Interval
CLower 34.2293
CUpper 46.4259
The table above shows the confidence intervals for the walking and sprinting test.
To calculate the confidence intervals see Appendix D. It was said with 95% confidence
that the true mean difference acceleration between walking and sprinting is between
46.4259 m/s2 and 34.2293 m/s2 for the walking and sprinting stages.
Hinz-Orlando 30
Figure 13 displays the data collected in the jogging and sprinting trials that was
organized into box plots. The jogging box plot has multiple outliers skewing the data to
the right. The sprinting box plot is also skewed to the right because the median is at 49.02
When the box plots were observed, they appeared to overlap. It was determined
from the overlap that a little more than 50% of the sprinting data had a greater
acceleration than the jogging data. The mean difference between sprinting and jogging is
21.22 m/s2 and the median difference between both sprinting and jogging is 18.57m/s2 in
difference. This suggests that the sprinting had a higher acceleration and force put on the
knee than the jogging. However, a two sample t-test was conducted to determine the
Ho: s = j
Ha: s > j
Figure 14. Null and Alternate Hypothesis for the Jogging and Sprinting Test
Hinz-Orlando 31
The figure on the previous page displays the null and alternate hypotheses for the
jogging and sprinting data. A two-sample t test was conducted to determine the
significance between the sets of data. This test was appropriate because this experiment
compares two sample means from two independent populations. The null hypothesis
states that the sprinting mean acceleration is equal to the jogging mean acceleration. The
alternative hypothesis states that the sprinting mean acceleration is greater than the
Table 10
Results of the Jogging and Sprinting Two-Sample t Test
Title 2-Sample t Test
t-value 6.0912
p-value 4.6410-8
xs 53.0521
xj 38.8306
sxs 16.7164
sxj 11.5433
ns 34
nj 34
Table 10 shows the results from the Two-Sample t-test between jogging and
sprinting. To calculate the t value refer to Appendix C. For the test, the null hypothesis,
which was that s = j, was rejected because the p-value of 4.6410E-8 was less than the
alpha value of 0.05. There is significant evidence that the jogging mean acceleration is
Hinz-Orlando 32
not equal to the sprinting mean acceleration. There is almost no chance that the data
Table 11 shows the confidence intervals for the jogging and sprinting test. To
calculate the confidence intervals see Appendix D. It was said with 95% confidence that
the true mean difference in acceleration between jogging and sprinting is between
14.2492 m/s2 and 28.1936 m/s2 for the jogging and sprinting stages.
Overall, the statistical evidence showed that there was a significant effect on the
acceleration between each stage of running. Since the p-value of all the tests was less
than the alpha level of 0.05, the null hypothesis for each test was rejected. This showed
that there was significant evidence the mean jogging acceleration was greater than the
mean walking acceleration, the mean sprinting acceleration was greater than the mean
walking acceleration, and the mean sprinting acceleration was also greater than the mean
jogging acceleration. From these statistical conclusions it can be seen that the sprinting
Conclusion
The experiment was run to test the effects of different running speeds on the force
exertion on knees. These trials were completed by strapping an accelerometer to the test
subject's knee and then having them walk, jog, or sprint. The data of the acceleration of
the knee was then collected and graphed by the Lab Quest. Since force equals the product
of acceleration and mass, as acceleration increased force also increased. This fact was
taken into account when determining which running stage created the highest magnitude
of force. Thirty-four trials were run on each of the three different stages of running.
This experiments hypothesis stated that the highest running speed or highest
acceleration would cause the most force to be exerted on the knee. The hypothesis was
accepted. The by comparing the mean accelerations of the three stages, it was apparent
that the sprinting stage had a higher mean acceleration than both the walking and jogging
stages. It was also noticed that the jogging mean acceleration was higher than the walking
mean acceleration.
The sprinting stage had the highest mean acceleration at 53.05 m/s2, the next
highest was the jogging stage with a mean acceleration at 31.83 m/s2, and the lowest was
the walking stage with a mean acceleration at 12.72 m/s2. These values indicate how
much greater the sprinting mean acceleration was in comparison to the other two stages.
This shows that the sprinting stage yielded the greatest magnitude of force on the
subjects knee.
Tests between walking and jogging, walking and sprinting, and jogging and
sprinting were all conducted. The p-values for all three tests were less than the alpha level
Hinz-Orlando 34
of 0.05, indicating that there was significant evidence that the mean accelerations were
not equal.
Therefore, the statistical tests and box plots support the hypothesis. Figure 9,
Figure 11, and Figure 13, all show the boxplots comparing the accelerations of walking,
jogging, and sprinting. Figure 10 displays the boxplot between walking and sprinting.
This visual displays how the mean acceleration of the sprinting stage is much higher in
magnitude in comparison to the walking stage. This is the same case for Figure 12 which
shows the boxplot between jogging and sprinting. No aspect of this experiment disagreed
The results of this experiment also agreed with the results of previous
experiments. One such experiment was The Effect of Shoe Configuration, Running
Speed, and Striking Style on the Maximum Acceleration of the Knee done by Ryan
Bisson and Haley Hilliard, previous MMSTC students. This past experiment stated that
an increase in the force on knees when running leads to an increase in the rate of knee
injury. The increase in force is associated with the sprinting stage acceleration (Bisson
In addition to this experiment, new research would include answering how the
angle of a knee when striking the ground affects the force exertion.
The experimental design for this research worked well enough to collect accurate
data. However, some issues occurred. For example, multiple trials were deleted because
the Lab Quests and accelerometers recorded faulty data. This was due to the fact that
some of the equipment in use was old and in need of replacement. The faulty
accelerometer was replaced, and the data collection began again, but throwing away the
Hinz-Orlando 35
data from those trials wasted a lot of time. Instead of using data for 35 to 40 trials, only
the data for 34 trials were used because inaccurate data was collected and thrown out. To
fix this, next time there needs to be more attention payed to the data collected so any
errors can be found much earlier. The test subjects also used different types of shoes.
Most used tennis shoes, but many were not the same brand, and an occasional few used
converse or vans. This could have affected the data because tennis shoes have more
spring in them than converse and vans. There is also a difference between the types of
tennis shoes and how they affect their running speeds. It most likely did not affect the
data a lot, but it still could have skewed the data slightly. To fix this in the future, all test
subject would wear the same shoes to decrease any data skewing.
In all, this experiment was run correctly and supports the hypothesis. This
professional athletes to the occasional jogger, knowing this information can help people
become more aware of how running at certain velocities can be detrimental to ones
health.
Hinz-Orlando 36
Acknowledgements
The experimenters would like to acknowledge the people who helped throughout
this experiment. Mrs. Cybulski helped with editing and formatting multiple aspects of the
paper. Mr. McMillan helped with understanding the science behind this experiment as
well as the procedure. Mrs. Gravel allowed her students to participate as test subjects for
this experiment. In addition, many MMSTC freshman participated as test subjects for this
experiment.
Hinz-Orlando 37
Materials:
Accelerometer
Lab Quest
Procedure:
1. Make sure the Lab Quest is fully charged. If it is, continue to step 2. If not, plug
the Lab Quest into an outlet.
Materials:
Accelerometer
Ace Bandage Wrap
4 Safety Pins
Procedure:
1. Attach the accelerometer to the middle of the Ace bandage wrap using one safety
pin on each side of the accelerometer.
2. Wrap the Ace bandage wrap onto the knee so that the accelerometer is just below
the knee.
3. Secure the Ace bandage wrap on the knee using two safety pins.
Hinz-Orlando 39
in the three stages of running. In this example, x stands for the mean of the jogging
acceleration, and x stands for the mean of the walking acceleration. The is the
standard deviation of the jogging acceleration, and is the standard deviation of the
walking acceleration. The is the number of trials in the jogging stage, and the is the
number of trials in the walking stage. To calculate the t value, divide the quantity of the
jogging mean minus the walking mean by the square root of the quantity of the standard
deviation of the jogging trails squared divided by the number of jogging trials plus the
quantity of the standard deviation of the walking trails squared divided by the number of
walking trials.
( x x )
t=
2 2
+
(31.8312.72)
t= 2 2
= 8.7195
11.54 +5.49
34 34
collected.
Hinz-Orlando 40
A 95% confidence interval was used after the t test was conducted. In this
example, x stands for the mean of the jogging acceleration, and x stands for the mean
of the walking acceleration. The is the standard deviation of the jogging acceleration,
and is the standard deviation of the walking acceleration. The is the number of trials
in the jogging stage, and the is the number of trials in the walking stage.
2 2
(x -x ) t * +
11.542 5.492
(31.83 12.72) (2.042) + = 14.6347 to 23.5853
34 34
The figure above shows the calculation of the 95% confidence interval. The value
of t* is 2.042.
Hinz-Orlando 41
Works Cited
2016.
<http://www.dimensionengineering.com/info/accelerometers>.
<http://seltsft.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2011/06/Mati_Pa%CC%88a%CC%88suke_p
o%CC%83lveliigese_biomehaanika.pdf>
Elert, Glenn "Acceleration." The Physics Hypertextbook. Glenn Elert, n.d. Web. 24 Apr.
2016.
<http://physics.info/acceleration/>.
Henderson, Tom "The Meaning of Force." The Physics Classroom. n.d. Web. 24 Apr.
2016. <http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-2/The-
Meaning-of-Force>.
Henderson, Tom "Speed and Velocity." The Physics Classroom. The Physics Classroom,
<http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-1/Speed-and-Velocity>
2016. <https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/accelerometer-basics>.
Matte, Michelle. "Weight & Knee Pressure When Walking, Running & Cycling." Live
<http://livehealthy.chron.com/weight-knee-pressure-walking-running-cycling-
5043.html>.
Hinz-Orlando 42
"Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome." N.p., n.d. Web. 10 May 2016. (Can be seen on page 2)
<http://america.pink/patellofemoral-pain-syndrome_3424878.html>
"Runner's Knee Help for Patellofemoral Pain and IT Band Irritation." My Life Stages.
<https://www.mylifestages.org/health/knees/runners_knee.page>.
Bisson, Ryan and Haley Hilliard. "Effect of Shoe Configuration, Running Speed, and
<http://www.wcskids.net/mmstc/students/research/physics/2012/bisson%20-
%20hilliard.asp>.