See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254861404

Journal of vibration and control

Article in Journal of Vibration and Control · October 2012

CITATIONS READS

2 291

1 author:

Masilamany Santha Alphin

Sri Sivasubramaniya Nadar College of Engineering
44 PUBLICATIONS 224 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Masilamany Santha Alphin on 24 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
Journal of Vibration and Control
18(11) 1683–1689

Segmental vibration transmissibility ! The Author(s) 2011

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
of seated occupant from lumped DOI: 10.1177/1077546311423065
jvc.sagepub.com
parameter models

Masilamany Santha Alphin, Krishnaswamy Sankaranarayanasamy

and Suthangathan Paramashivan Sivapirakasam

Abstract
One of the important parameters for the comfort of a seated occupant of a vehicle is the dynamic parameter. The effects
of vibration depend on biomechanical characteristics, transmissibility (TR) and apparent mass. The range of input vibration
at the seat and TR at the driving frequency will decide the magnitude of the displacement at any point of the human
occupant. The most preferred form of biomechanical model for unidirectional whole body vibration is the lumped
parameter model. Lumped parameter models are formulated by number of masses depending on the number of
degrees-of-freedom (d.f.). The objective of this work is to study the vibration TR by developing the equations of
motion (EOM) for different d.f. models for the seated occupant. Then the generated equations of motion for lumped
parameter models are solved using the frequency domain technique. In this paper two, four, seven and 11 d.f. models are
considered. The TR values are determined by solving the derived parameters using the MATLAB program. The maximum
seats to head TR in the case of two, four, seven and 11 d.f. are obtained at the frequency of 2 Hz, 2.5 Hz, 3.15 Hz, and 4 Hz
respectively. The TR obtained from models is compared with real time experimental results. The comparison shows a
better fit for the TR obtained from the four and seven d.f. models. There is a wide deviation from the TR observed with
two and 11 degrees of models when compared with experimental results of the past literature.

Keywords
Frequency domain, lumped parameter models, mathematical modeling, transmissibility, whole body vibration
Received: 15 February 2011; accepted: 15 July 2011

and spine. It is possible that some types of injurious

1. Introduction
The human body is a very sophisticated dynamic system
whose mechanical properties vary from moment
to moment and from one individual to another. In the
past few decades, many mathematical models have been
developed on the basis of diverse field measurements to
describe the biodynamic responses of human beings.
According to different modeling techniques, these can
be grouped as lumped parameter models, finite element
(FE) models, and multi-body models. The human
responses can be successfully simulated and analyzed
as a biomechanical model with finite degrees-of-freedom
(d.o.f) in applying the appropriate computation
method. Biodynamic studies have identified critical fre-
quency ranges, i.e. resonant frequencies, for different
parts of the body, such as eyes, head, shoulders, neck
effects are closely related to whole body vibration
(WBV) exposures which contain frequencies leading to
resonant behavior of the body or parts of the body. For
instance, it has been shown that the spine has a resonant
frequency of about 5 Hz, i.e. a frequency which is pro-
duced in many types of vehicles and earth-moving
machinery. This might be a casual or a contributing
factor to the development of low back pain among
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology,
Tiruchirapalli, India
Corresponding author:
MS Alphin, Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of
Technology, Tiruchirapalli, India
Email: alphin@aol.in
1684
professional drivers. In sitting posture the vibration
exciting the hip and thigh is transmitted to the head
through the entire body part. So the vibration transmis-
sibility (TR) to the head and driving point mechanical
impedance or apparent mass of the human body are
important characteristics to express the vibration char-
acteristics of a body (Boileau and Rakheja, 1998). Also
the vibration of the hip and head is an important factor
affecting the ride comfort and visual disturbance. The
mechanical driving point impedance is often used to
describe the biodynamical properties of the human
body. It specifies the complex ratio between the dynamic
forces to which the subject is exposed to, and the result-
ing body motion in terms of velocity. In a WBV context
biomechanical responses mean the responses of the
human body to applied vibration: its tissues, organs,
parts and system either with reference to impressed
forces or motion. In simple words, the study of how
vibration is transmitted through to the body (imped-
ance) and how vibration is transmitted through the
body (TR) is known as Biomechanical.
The lumped parameter model analyzes the vertical
vibrations only where the motions are assumed to be
dominant. Lumped parameter models consider the
human body as several concentrated masses intercon-
nected by springs and dampers. This type of model is
simple to analyze and easy to validate with experiments.
However, the disadvantage is the limitation to one-
directional analysis. The human body consists of a
body skeleton, soft visceral organs, and fluid. The
human skeleton is held together by tough fibrous liga-
ments which are embedded in a highly organized mass
of connective tissue and muscle. The soft organs (brain,
heart, stomach, etc.) and fluid (blood, water, etc.) can be
grouped into soft tissue. The combination of soft tissue
and bone in the structure of the human body can
be described, for most purposes, as a lumped parameter
system at low frequencies below 100 Hz (Harris, 1988).
As traveling increases, the driver is more exposed
to low-frequency vibration mostly originating from
the interaction between the road and the vehicle.
Therefore, extensive experimental work has been done,
and lumped parameter models with varying degrees
of complexity have been formulated accordingly, to
predict the biodynamic responses of seated human sub-
jects. As mentioned previously, a lumped parameter
model considers the human body as several concen-
trated masses coupled by springs and dampers, either
linear or nonlinear. The parameters of mathematical
models were mainly obtained through the driving
point mechanical impedance, TR data of specific body
segments reported, or a combination of these methods.
The number of mass segments and/or d.o.f of the system
depends mainly on the analysis objective. Humans are
more sensitive to WBV under low frequency excitation
Journal of Vibration and Control 18(11)
in seated posture. However, the disadvantage is the lim-
itation to one-directional analysis.
The parameters of mathematical models were
mainly obtained through the driving point mechanical
impedance, TR data of specific body segments or a com-
bination of these methods. In this context, for lumped
parameter models of two, four, seven and 11 d.f. models
the equations of motion are obtained. Equations of
motion are solved by using the frequency domain (FD)
method. By using the MATLAB software, TR values
from seat to different body positions are determined.
TR values are compared with experimental data taken
from the previously published literature. By analysis,
which lumped parameter model is best suited to experi-
mental data is to be found to study the biodynamic
responses of humans exposed to vertical WBV.
2. Mathematical model
Mathematical models may serve as a useful tool for the
development and evaluation of seating systems for
vibration mitigation (Smith, 2000). From previous
discussion, the lumped parameter model is probably
one of the most popular analytical methods in the
study of biodynamic responses of seated human sub-
jects, though it is limited to one- directional analysis.
However, vertical vibration exposure of the driver is
the main concern in this study. Therefore, this study
focuses on the lumped parameter model for seated
human subjects exposed to vertical vibration. The
system of equations of motion (EOM) is derived for
two, four, seven, and 11 d.f. models. Solution tech-
niques used in this study include simulations using
MATLAB.
3. Development of mathematical
model
A human driver is considered for a normal sitting pos-
ture with hands resting on the steering wheel while feet
are supported on a vibrating platform. In this study, the
influence of hands and the lower segments of the legs are
neglected. It is also assumed that the body is in full
contact with seat. Such a human-seat system with the
previously mentioned constraints is modeled with two,
four, seven and 11 d.o.f. The system consists of
rigid bodies represented by their masses (m) serially
interconnected by springs (K) and dampers (C). All
parts of the human body are interconnected with the
seat by using spring and dampers .For example twelve
masses in the case 11 d.f. model with 11 generalized
coordinates (Z) to describe the motion of the masses
of: pelvis (Z1); abdomen (Z2); diaphragm (Z3); thorax
(Z4); torso (Z5); upper arm (Z6); lower arm (Z7); lumbar
spine (Z8); thoracic spine (Z9); neck (Z10); head
Alphin et al. 1685

(Z11)).The excitation inputs are mainly from the masses

of ‘‘seat’’ in this model, since the human body in sitting
4.3. Transmissibility
condition is considered. Vibration in vertical direction Most of the available literature on the TR of the human
only is considered (i.e., Z direction) and internal friction body describes the relation between vertical vibration
forces are neglected. of the seat and resulting vertical vibration at the head.
There have been few attempts to relate vertical seat-to-
head TR data to measures of discomfort, activity dis-
turbance or health effects. The TR of the whole body is
4. Governing equation usually determined between the seat surface (considered
The governing equation in the matrix form can be writ- to be the input) and the head (considered be the output).
ten as, From the above discussion, the TR function can be
defined as a ratio of output responses (such as head)

€ þ ½c Z_ þ ½kfZg ¼ 0
½mfZg to input excitation (such as seat). Mathematically, TR
can be expressed as:
Where [m] ¼ Mass matrix of order equal to d.f.
Zi ð j!Þ
[c] ¼ Damping coefficient matrix of order equal TR ¼
to d.f. Z0 ð j!Þ
[k] ¼ Stiffness Coefficient matrix of order equal Where,
to d.f. Zi(j!) ¼ Output displacement amplitude of inter-
€ ZgfZg
fZgf _ ¼ Acceleration, velocity, Displacement ested organ
vectors of order equal to d.f. Z0(j!) ¼ Input displacement amplitude

4.1. Solving the Equations of Motion

As mentioned previously, the lumped parameter model
used in this study is a linear system. Therefore, the
frequency domain (FD) technique is selected to resolve
the equation of motion for each model. Linear models
are simulated in FD for better results.
A brief solution procedure adapted is given below.

4.2. Frequency Domain Method

This method is mainly suitable for linear systems with
harmonic input excitation. The solution of this method
Figure 1. Two degrees-of-freedom model.
only takes account of the system’s steady-state response
(Paddan and Griffin, 2002). For example, neglecting the
nonlinear term and taking the Fourier transformation 4.0
of governing equation the following matrix form of
equation can be obtained: 3.5 Seat to body
Seat to head
    3.0
ZðjuÞ ¼ ½K  u2 M  ju½C1 FZ ðjuÞ 
Transmissibility

2.5
Where,
2.0
Z (j o) ¼ Complex Fourier transformation vector
of fZ} 1.5
FZ (j o) ¼ Complex Fourier transformation vector
of ffz} 1.0

Vector fZ(jo)} and FZ (j o) are the complex Fourier

0.5
transformation vectors of fZ} and fFZ} respectively and
o is the excitation frequency.fZ(jo)} contains complex 0.0
displacement responses of n mass segments as a function 0 5 10 15 20

of !. FZ (j o) consists of complex excitation forces on Frequency (Hz)

the mass segments as a function of o as well and Z0o is

the amplitude of input displacement excitation. Figure 2. Transmissibility from two degrees-of-freedom model.
1686 Journal of Vibration and Control 18(11)

each model. Linear models are simulated in FD for

5. Results simplicity.
The biodynamic responses of the seated human sub-
jected to vertical vibration exposure have widely been
5.1. Two degrees-of-freedom model
assessed in terms of TR. The sinusoidal acceleration of
input excitation is assumed from buttocks. As men- The EOM were derived for the two d.f. model shown in
tioned previously, the lumped parameter model shown Figure 1. Vibration TR has been determined by using
in this study is a linear system. Therefore, the FD tech-
nique is selected to resolve the equation of motions for

1.8 Seat to body

Seat to upper torso
1.6
Seat to lower torso
Seat to pelvis
1.4

Transmissibility
1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 5 10 15 20
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 3. Four degrees-of-freedom model. Figure 4. Transmissibility from four degrees-of-freedom model.

Figure 5. Seven degrees-of-freedom model.

Alphin et al. 1687

transfer function. The TR for the two d.f. model body to seat TR. The variation of TR with frequency
obtained is represented in Figure 2. Z1/Z0 gives the shows the maximum at the frequency of 4 Hz and for the
head to seat to TR and Z2/Z0 represents the main seat to head and seat to main body. From the graph it is
evident that body to seat TR was more than seat to head
TR.
2.5
Seat to pelvis
Seat to abdomen 5.2. Four degrees-of-freedom model
Seat to diaphragm
2.0
Seat to Thorax The four d.f. model is shown in Figure 3. The TR values
Seat to torso for the four d.f. model, Z1/Z0, Z2/Z0, Z3/Z0,and Z4/Z0
Seat to back
Transmissibility

1.5 Seat to head

were found to represent seat to pelvis TR, seat to lower
torso TR, seat to upper torso TR and seat to head TR
respectively. In Figure 4 the plots are drawn between the
1.0 TR values of the seat to pelvis, upper torso, lower torso,
and head with frequency. TR reaches its peak at the
frequency of 5 Hz for all the segmental vibration
0.5
transmitted.

0.0
0 5 10 15 20
5.3. Seven degrees-of-freedom model
Frequency (Hz) The seven d.f. model is showed in Figure 5. The masses
considered in this model are pelvis, abdomen, dia-
Figure 6. Transmissibility for seven degrees-of-freedom model. phragm, thorax, torso, back and head. Z7/Z0 represents

Figure 7. 11 Degrees-of-freedom model.

1688 Journal of Vibration and Control 18(11)

thorax, torso, back, head are maximum at the frequency

Seat to pelvis of 2 Hz.
2.5
Seat to abdomen
Seat to diaphragm From the graph it is evident that pelvis to seat TR
Seat to Thorax values are more than that of seat to head TR.
2.0 Seat to torso
Seat to upper arm
Transmissibility

Seat to lower arm

1.5 Seat tolumber spine
5.4. 11 Degrees-of-freedom model
Seat to thorasic spine
Seat to neck
By using free body diagrams the EOM have been
1.0
Seat to head derived for the 11 d.f. model (Figure 7).The TR varia-
tion for 11 d.f. model for different segmental masses are
computed as Z1/Z0, Z2/Z0, Z3/Z0, Z4/Z0, Z5/Z0, Z6/Z0,
0.5
Z7/Z0, Z8/Z0, Z9/Z0,Z10/Z0, and Z11/Z0 for seat to pelvis
TR, seat to abdomen TR, seat to diaphragm TR, seat
0.0 to thorax TR, seat to torso TR, seat to upper arm TR,
0 5 10 15 20
seat to lower arm TR, seat to lumbar spine TR, seat to
Frequency (Hz)
thoracic spine TR, seat to neck TR, seat to head TR
respectively. Figure 8 shows the variation of TR with
Figure 8. Transmissibility from 11 degrees-of-freedom model. frequency. The TR values from the seat to pelvis, abdo-
men, diaphragm, thorax, torso, upper arm, lower arm,
lumbar spine, thoracic spine, head reach their maximum
3
11 D.O.F at the frequency of 2 Hz. From the graph it is evi-
2
dent that pelvis to seat TR values is more than seat to
head TR.
1

0
7 D.O.F 6. Validation of mathematical models
2
The biodynamic responses of the seated humans sub-
Transmissibility (Seat to head)

1 jected to vertical vibration exposure have been widely

assessed in terms of TR and apparent mass (Paddan and
0
4 D.O.F Griffin, 2002).
1 The response of the four models is compared for val-
idation with experimental data (Figure 9). Finally the
model with enough prediction accuracy was established.
0 The two d.f. model provides 79.13% goodness of fit for
3 2DOF
seat to head TR and the peak value of vibration trans-
2 mitted for the model occurs at the frequency of 4 Hz for
1 seat to head TR.
0
The 97.87% goodness of fit for seat to head TR is
Experimental observed with the four d.f. model. It is assumed that the
1 human body be firmly seated on the seat and the peak
value of the four d.f. model occurs at the frequency of
4.5 Hz for seat to head TR. The seven d.f. model, with a
0
0 5 10 15 20
goodness of fit for seat to head TR is 55.94%. The peak
Frequency (Hz) value of the seven d.f. model occurs at the frequency of
2.5 Hz for seat to head TR. For the 11 d.f. model, the
Figure 9. Comparison of seat to head transmissibility.
goodness of fit for seat to head TR is found as
44.64%.The peak value of the 11 d.f. model occurs at
2.3 Hz for seat to head TR.
seat to pelvis TR, Z6/Z0 represents seat to abdomen TR,
Z5/Z0 represents seat to diaphragm TR, Z4/Z0 repre-
sents Seat to thorax TR, Z3/Z0 represents seat to torso
7. Discussions
TR, Z2/Z0 represents seat to back TR, Z1/Z0 represents The EOM for lumped parameter models are solved by
seat to head TR. using the FD technique. The TR values are to be found
Figure 6 shows the variation of TR with frequency. by using the MATLAB program. The maximum seat to
The TR from seat to pelvis, abdomen, diaphragm, head TR value, obtained at the frequency of 3.15 Hz for
 Alphin et al.
the two d.f. model, for the four d.f. model at the fre-
quency of 4 Hz, for the seven d.f. model at the frequency
of 2 Hz and for the 11 d.f. model at the frequency of
2.5 Hz. By comparing with experimental results, it was
observed that the four d.f. model developed by Wan and
Schimmels (1995) gives the best estimation on seat to
head TR with a goodness of fit value of 97.87% .While
seat to TR values derived from other models deviate
more from the experimental results.
Accordingly the four d.f. model is recommended for
the study of biodynamic responses of seated human sub-
jects exposed to vertical WBV.
8. Conclusions
The human body in this study is to be considered with-
out backrest support. The mathematical models include
linear system with various d.f. The EOM were obtained
for lumped parameter models by using mathematical
techniques. Then the generated EOM for lumped
parameter models are solved by using the FD tech-
nique for those models i.e. two, four, seven and 11
d.f.. The FD method takes the Fourier transformation
of the system to obtain the steady state response from
the EOM. The TR values obtained from MATLAB are
to be compared with real time experimental results
obtained from the previous literature. By comparing
View publication stats
1689
the results it was found that the four d.f. model results
were best fitted to the experimental data. Accordingly
the four d.f. model is recommended for the study of
biodynamic responses of seated human subjects exposed
to WBV.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Boileau PE and Rakheja S (1998) Whole-body vertical biody-
namic response characteristics of the seated vehicle driver:
Measurement and model development. International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 22(6): 449–472.
Harris CM (1988) Shock and Vibration Handbook, 3rd edn.
McGraw Hill: New York.
Paddan GS and Griffin MJ (2002) Evaluation of whole body
vibration in vehicles. Journal of Sound and Vibration
253(1): 195–241.
Smith SD (2000) Modeling differences in the vibration
response characteristics of the human body. Journal of
Biomechanics 33: 1513–1516.
Wan Y and Schimmels JM (1995) A simple model that cap-
tures the essential dynamics of a seated human exposed to
whole body vibration. Advances in Bioengineering BED 31:
333–334.