4.5 Article

Dynamic forces over the interface between a seated human body and a rigid seat during vertical whole-body vibration

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
卷 61, 期 -, 页码 176-182

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.07.015

关键词

Whole-body vibration; Biodynamics; Localised apparent mass; Nonlinearity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biodynamic responses of the seated human body are usually measured and modelled assuming a single point of vibration excitation. With vertical vibration excitation, this study investigated how forces are distributed over the body-seat interface. Vertical and fore-and-aft forces were measured beneath the ischial tuberosities, middle thighs, and front thighs of 14 subjects sitting on a rigid flat seat in three postures with different thigh contact while exposed to random vertical vibration at three magnitudes. Measures of apparent mass were calculated from transfer functions between the vertical acceleration of the seat and the vertical or fore-and-aft forces measured at the three locations, and the sum of these forces. When sitting normally or sitting, with a high footrest, vertical forces at the ischial tuberosities dominated the vertical apparent mass. With feet unsupported to give increased thigh contact, vertical forces at the front thighs were dominant around 8 Hz. Around 3-7 Hz, fore-and-aft forces at the middle thighs dominated the fore-and-aft cross-axis apparent mass. Around 8-10 Hz, fore-and-aft forces were dominant at the ischial tuberosities with feet supported but at the front thighs with feet unsupported. All apparent masses were nonlinear: as the vibration magnitude increased the resonance frequencies decreased. With feet unsupported, the nonlinearity in the apparent mass was greater at the front thighs than at the ischial tuberosities. It is concluded that when the thighs are supported on a seat it is not appropriate to assume the body has a single point of vibration excitation. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据