Pergamon J. Biomechnnics. Vol. 29. No. 4, tm.

493-501, 1996
Copyright Q 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd. kil rights nserved
0021-9290(95)00074-7 Printed in Great Britain
OfE-9290196 015.00 + 68

VIBRATION EFFECTS ON SETTING PREGNANT

WOVEN-SUBJECTS OF VARIOUS MASSES
W. Qassem* and M. 0. Othmant
*Hijjawi Faculty for Applied Engineering, Yarmouk University, I&id, Jordan; and tDepartment of Mechanical
Engineering, The Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan

Abstract-An electrical simulation of a mechanical model of a 60 kg pregnant woman subjected to horizontal and
vertical vibrations has been investigated by using a computer software package (MICRO-CAP II). The results
have shown that mechanical vibrations affect the body segments differently based on their location, the kind of
vibration and pregnancy development. The vibrations’ effect on the body varies from segment to segment and
a lady driver is affected by vibrations more than a lady passenger. Horizontal vibrations affect body segments
(lower arm, upper arm, head, thorax, torso, cervical spine, thoracic spine and lumbar spine) more than vertical
vibrations, while the thorax is affected by vertical vibrations more than horizontal vibrations.

NOMENCLATURE et al., 1984;Patil et al., 1978;Popeet al., 1986;Qassemet

A abdomen al., 1994; Quandieu and Pellieux, 1982; Wangenheim,
C.S. cervical spine 1984)carried out in viva or in vitro studiesin order to
D diaphragm investigate the effect of vibrations on humans.They
Fi input force found good agreementbetweenthe resultsof analytical
F, output force modelsand the experimentalmeasurements.
G gain Several investigators(Quandieu and Pellieux, 1982;
G gain of 60kg unpregnantwomen Panjabiet al., 1984;Wangenheimet al., 1984;Popeet al.,
62 gain of pregnant womenwhosemass 1986; Seidel et at., 1986;Seideland Heide, 1988)have
becomesm kg due to pregnancy reported somemethodsusedto investigatethe human
H head body’s response to vibrations. This has led some re-
L.A. lower arm searchersto investigatethe effectsof vertical, transverse
LBP low back pain and torsionalvibrations. It hasbeenreported(Popeand
L.S. lumbar spine Hansson,1992;Popeet at., 1990;Wilder et al., 1985)that
MICRO computer softwareprogram LBP could bedue to both vertical and bendingmotions.
CAP II Sjoflot and Suggs(1973)found that subjectsare more
P pelvis affected and show more depressive performance due to
T torso transverseangularvibrations than due to vertical vibra-
Th thorax tions. The worst effectis the combinationof vertical and
T.S. thoracic spine transverse motions. Moreover, it has been found
U.A. upper arm (Amirouche, 1987b)that vibration is harmful when its
frequency is in the range l-15 Hz and the humanspine
INTRODUCTION resonates at about 4-5 Hz.
It is obviousfrom this literature review,that thereisno
Technical developmentshave increasedthe number of study yet devotedto the effectsof vibrations on pregnant
people exposedto vibrations. Specific standardshave women.This study is thereforecarried out to study the
beenattributed (IS0 2631,1978;ISO/DIS 5349,1980)for effectsof vertical and horizontal vibrations on this class
vibration effectson the human body. Analytical invest- of population. A previously established electrical simula-
igations(Adamsand Hutton, 1985;Amirouche, 1987a,b; tion and an experimental verification of a developed
Muksian and Nash, 1974,1976;Qassemet a[., 1994; mechanical model (Qassem et al., 1994) of the human
Sandover,1984;Wilder, 1985)havebeencarried out and body have beenusedfor the purposeof this study.
have resultedin a set of criteria in order to study the
effectof vibrations on the humanbody. The humanbody
was treated as a model of lumped masses, springsand
METHODS
dashpotsthat has beendevelopedby severalinvestiga-
tors (Coermann et al., 1962; Greene and McMahon,
The variations of body massdueto pregnancyhavebeen
1979;Muksian and Nash, 1974,1976;Patil et al., 1978). taken from Bobak et al. (1989)(seeTable 1).The increase
Severalexperimenters(Nokesand Thorne, 1988;Panjabi
of the body masshas beentaken to be distributed be-
tween the thorax and abdomen at the same ratios of their
Received
inpnaiform 20 March1995. masses.
The body hasbeenrepresentedby a mechanical

493
494 W. Qassem and M. 0. Othman
model (Figs 1 and 2) subjectedto vibrations coming
from: (a) steering,(b) seator (c) both steeringand seat.
At low-frequencylevel, the humanbody hasbeenrep-
resentedby a linear spring-mass-damper model(Mishoe
and Suggs,1977;Wood et al., 1978).Figure 1 shows
a mechanicalhuman body model exposedto vibration
comingfrom (a) steering,(b) seator (c) both steeringand
seat. In this model the lumped masses of
(L.A., U.A., C.S.,H, T, Th, D, A, T.S., L.S., P) have been
considered. The Muksianand Nash(1974)modelhasbeen
developedby including morebody segments (L.A., U.A.,
C.S.,T.S.,L.S.). The spring-mass-dashpotconnection
representsthe elasticdampingconstantsof the connect-
ive tissuesbetweenthe body segments. Figure 2(a)and (b)
represents the equivalent vertical and horizontal
ground-chair representation.It showsthe massconnec-
ted in serieswith other elements(springsand dashpots).
The mechanicalparametersof the body segments have
been taken from previous investigators (Mizrahi and
Susak,1982;Muksian and Nash, 1974;Patil et al., 1978)
(see Table 2). Vertical and horizontal mechanical
ground-chair representationmodelshave beensimulated
by equivalent electrical models based on a direct
force-voltage analogyashasbeencarried out previously
by the authors(Qassemet al., 1994).The responseof the
body segments to vibrations hasbeenanalyzedby using
a computersoftwarepackage(MICRO-CAP II).
To verify the theoreticalmodel,an experimentalsetup
hasbeendesignedby the authors of this article (Qassem
et al., 1994).Humanbodieshave beensubjectedto vibra-
tions (5-500 Hz) and a Hewlett-Packard FFT analyzer
(Type 3582A)hasbeenusedto measurethe acceleration.
Two accelerometers wereused,the first one wasattached
to the input source of vibrations and the other was
attached to the relevant body segment.The measure-
mentsof accelerationwere recordedfor the lower arm,
headand torso.
RESULTS
Figures3 and 4 showthe gain of the transferfunction Table 5 showsthat:
of a woman’storso segmentwhen she is subjectedto (a) When the body is subjectedto horizontal or verti-
vertical and horizontal sinusoidalvibrations. This seg-
ment is more likely to have positive gain due to vibra-
tions. The gain representsthe amplitude ratio between
Table 1. Increase of mass of normal
women after nine months of preganancy
(after Bobak et al., 1989) (b) When the body is subjectedto horizontal vibra-
Segment Increase of mass (9)
Fetus 3400
Placenta 450
Amniotic fluid 400
Uterus 1100
Breast tissue 1400
Blood volume 1800
Maternal stores 1800-3600
(c) When the body is subjectedto horizontal vibra-
the output and input force,
G = 20 log (F,/Fi).
Positiveor negativegain(G) indicatesthat F,/Fi > 1 or
< 1, respectively.Therefore,positive or negativeG indi-
cates that the relevant body segmentloosesor gains
energy, respectively.Table 3 showsthe gain, in a 60kg
humanbody segmentssubjectedto vertical and horizon-
tal vibrations coming from steering,seat or both. It is
found that:
(4 When the input signalcomesfrom the steering,the
gainsof (L.A., U.A.) are positive while the gainsof
(T, Th, H, C.S.,T.S., L.S.) are negative.
(b) When the input signal comesfrom the seat, the
gainsof all body segmentsare negative.
(4 For the caseof horizontal vibrations, when the
input signalcomesfrom both steeringand seat,the
gainsof (L.A., U.A., T, H, C.S.,T.S., L.S.) are posit-
ive while the gain of thorax (Th) is negative.
(4 For the caseof vertical vibrations, whenthe signal
comesfrom both steeringand seat, the gains of
(L.A., U.A., T, Th) are positive and the gains of
(H, C.S.,T.S., L.S.) are negative.
In general,the driver is subjectedto vibrations coming
from both steeringand seatwhile the passengeris sub-
jected to vibrations coming from the seatalone. Table
4 showsthat when the body is subjectedto vertical and
horizontal vibrations, the gains of (L.A., U.A., T, Th) in
a driver are higher than the gains of the passenger’s
relevant body segments.Each of the body segments
(L.A., U.A., T, H, C.S.,T.S., L.S.) is affectedby horizontal
vibrations morethan vertical vibrations. This resultis in
agreementwith previous findings (Sjoflot and Suggs,
1973).Only the thorax (Th) is affectedby vertical vibra-
tions more than horizontal vibrations.
The variation of gain AG with the massincreaseof
a 60 kg women,due to pregnancy,is:
AG = G, - G,.
cal vibrations comingfrom the steering,the gains
of (L.A., U.A.) increaseas the pregnancydevelops.
However, the gains of the other body segments
(T, H, C.S.,T.S.,L.S.) decreasewith the pregnancy
while the gain of thorax (Th) increasesasthe preg-
nancy developswhenthe body is subjectedto hori-
zontal vibrations.
tions coming from the seat, the gains of
(L.A., U.A.,T,H,C.S.,T.S.,L.S.) decrease while
the gain of thorax (Th) increasesasthe pregnancy
develops.However, for the caseof vertical vibra-
tions,the gainsof (L.A., U.A., T,Th) decreasewhile
the gain of lumbar spine(L.S.) increasesand the
gainsof (H, C.S.,T.S.) slightly decreaseasthe preg-
nancy develops.
 Vibration effects on setting pregnant women--subjects of various masses

PELVIS

Qjoi SEAT

Fig. 1. Mechanical model of the human body vibrations.

tions comingfrom both steeringand seat,the gains while the gainsof (H, C.S.,TX) do not changewith
of (L.A., U.A., T, H, C.S.,T.S., L.S.) decreasewhile pregnancy.
the gain of thorax (Th) increasesasthe pregnancy
DISCUSSION
develops.Moreover, for the caseof vertical vibra-
tions, the gainsof (L.A., U.A., T, Th) decreaseand Good agreementhasbeenfound betweenboth theor-
the gain of lumbar spine (L.S.) slightly increase etical and experimentalresultsindicatedby the fact they
496 W. Qassem
VERTICAL INF’UT
VERTICAL
Fig. 2a. Ground-chair representation of pregnant women subjected to vertical vibrations.
follow similar trends. The accelerometer was not capable
of capturing significant signals from the other body seg-
ments, possibly due to damping caused by fat on their
surfaces. To overcome this difficulty needles have to be
inserted into sensitive areas (i.e. the spine) as has been
done by Panjabi et al. (1984). With all the possible risks
involved, the ethical issue remains an obstacle.
The effects of uncoupled vertical and horizontal vibra-
tions on pregnant women have been considered in this
study. Torsional vibrations effects due to subsystems
have not been considered. Information about the tor-
and M. 0. Othman
SEAT
INPUT
sional and damping coefficients are required in order to
investigate its effects on the body segments. The torsional
and the coupling effects remain an issue for future studies.
It is clear from Table 5 therefore, that as the pregnancy
develops, the gains of body segments change according to
the kind of vibration (horizontal or vertical) and the
input source (steering , seat or both). This could be
explained by the fact that, as the pregnancy develops, the
inertia of the abdomen significantly increases while the
inertia of other body segments (LA., U.k, T, Th, H, C.S.,
T.S.,IS.) are only slightly increased Therefor% the abdomen
 HORIZONTAL INPUT

Fig. 2b. Ground-chair representation of pregnant women subjected to horizontal vibrations.

Table 2. Mechanical parameters of human body segments (after Muksian and Nash, 1974)

Vertical vibrations Horizontal vibrations

Stiffness Damping Stiffness Damping Mass

Body segment @J/m) const~t(~~ms) (~/m} constant~/ms) w
Upper arm 67,542* 3581.63t 67,542 3581.63 3.282
Lower arm 61,542* 3581.63P 67,542 3581.63 3.178
Torso 52,621 35131.63T 52,621 3581.63 19.618
Thoracic spine 52,621 3581.63 52,621 3581.63 2.884
Thorax 877.11 292.34 877.11 292.34 8.176
Cervical spine 52,621 3581.63 52,621 3581.63 0.650
Head 52,621 3581.63 52,621 3581.63 3.267
Lumbar spine 52,621 3581.63 52,621 3581.63 1.201
Diaphragm 877.11 292.34 877.11 292.34 0.272
Abdomen 877.11 292.34 877.11 292.34 0.3.544
Pelvis 250161 370.82$ 25,016$ 370.82$ 16.304
*Mizrahi and Susak (1982).
fLIpper and lower arm are considered as the spine.
SPatif et al. (1978).
498 W. Qassem and M. 0. O&man

-60

,,,,.,,,,,, ,.,,.......,
,_,,,,.., .,._....,,,, . .I .

(a)
1 Frequency IO 100

1 10 100
Frequency

0.0

-20
.5
8
-40

-60

1 Frequency 10 100

Fig. 3. Transfer function of torso of pregnant women in the third trimester whose masses (x 72, 0 92,
A 112 kg) subjected to vertical vibrations coming from (a) hand, (b) seat or (c) both.
 Vibration effects on setting pregnant women-subjects of various masses 499

1 Frequency IO 100

jj
-40

-60

(b)
Frequency 100

Frequency too

Fig. 4. Transfer function of torso of pregnant women in the third trimester whose masses ( x 72, 0 92,
A 112 kg) subjected to horizontal vibrations, coming from (a) hand, (b) seat or (c) both.
 W. Qassem and M. 0. Othman

Table 3. Gains (G) of body segments due to vertical and horizontal

vibrations

Body Gain (G) due to Gain (C) due to

segment Source vertical vibrations horizontal vibrations
Lower Steering 0.259 0.246
arm Seat - 20.115 - 19.449
Both 8.880 9.508
UPW Steering 0.070 0.077
arm seat - 14.130 - 13.514
Both 8.716 9.322
Torso Steering - 3.356 - 2.943
Seat - 2.682 - 2.242
Both 6.555 6.834
Thorax Steering - 4.686 - 25.633
Seat - 0.168 - 22.138
Both 5.450 - 23.165
Head Steering - 43229 - 4.779
Seat - 35.775 -0.605
Both - 35.774 5.586
Thoracic Steering - 45.117 - 3.615
spine seat - 36.668 - lSS5
Both - 36.663 6.288
Cervical Steering - 43.229 - 3.789
spine Seat - 35.775 - 1.397
Both - 35.774 6.172
Lumbar steering - 36.966 - 5.247
spine Seat - 32.325 - 0.492
Both - 33.391 5.301

Table 4. Comparison of gains of various body segments of a 60 kg human body

subjected to vertical and horizontal vibrations

Vertical Horizontal
Body segment vibrations vibrations Relations

Lower arm 3, > H, > S” Bh > Hh > s, fib > H,, 3, > B, Sb > S,
Upper arm B, > H, > s, Bb > Hh > s, Hb > H,, Bh> &, S, > Sv
Torso 3” > s, > H, 3h > s, > H, Hz, > H,, Bh 3 6, %a > &
Thorax B, > S, > H, s, > s, > Hh H,>&,,&>&,,&>Sh
Head B, = S, > If, 3, = Sh > H, H,>H,,&>EB,,&>Sy
Thoracic spine B, = S, > H, Bb = Sh > H, 4, ) 4, & > &, Sh > &
Cervical spine B, = S, > H, B, = Sh > H, 4, > H,, 4, > I-4, SI, > Sv
Lumbar spine B, = S, > H, &, = s,, > Hh H,, > H,, B,, > Bv, Sh > &

Table 5. Variation of AG with the mass increase of a 60 kg woman, due to pregnancy (Am, = 1.35,
AmZ = 5.85, Am:, = 12.0 kg) subjected to vibrations coming from (a) steering, (b) seat, and (c)both steering
and seat

Vertical vibrations Horizontal vibrations

Body
segment Source Amr Am2 Am3 Am1 Am Am3
Lower Steering - 0.014 - 0.038 0.006 - 0.01s - 0.021
arm Seat E?z 0.321 0.451 0.062 0.145 0.167
Both 0:494 1.937 2.582 0.030 0.110 0.177
Upper Steering - 0.001 - 0.033 - 0.075 - 0.010 - 0.029 - O.fMf
arm B% 0.127 0.321 0.451 0.062 0.145 0.168
0.494 1.936 2.603 0.030 0.110 0.177
Torso Steering -0.005 0.185 0.232 0.037 0.078 0.082
Seat 0.127 0.321 0.451 0.049 0.146 0.183
Both 0.480 1.922 2.623 0.029 0.109 0.176
 Vibration effects on setting pregnant women-subjects of various masses 501

Table 5. (Continwd)
Vertical vibrations Horizontal vibrations
Body
segment Source AmI Am2 Am3 4 Am, Am,

Thorax Steering 0.083 0.494 0.756 - 0.781 - 1.773 - 2.813

Seat 0.077 0.116 0.260 - 0.813 - 1.094 - 2.353
Both 0.326 1.649 2.659 - 1.665 - 4.486 - 6.031

Head Steering 0.099 0.324 0.484 0.059 0.138 0.158

Seat 0.001 - o.oor - 0.005 0.047 0.137 0.236
Both - 0.004 - 0.003 - 0.002 - 0.018 0.074 0.131

Thoracic Steering 0.099 0.187 0.227 0.044 0.098 0.107

spine Seat - 0.001 - 0.001 - 0.005 0.049 0.142 0.192
Both 0.000 0.000 - 0.001 0.021 0.078 0.136
Cervical Steering 0.009 0.324 0.484 0.046 0.104 0.115
spine Seat O.OOf - 0.002 - 0.003 0.048 0.142 0.191
Both - 0.001 - 0.002 - 0.003 0.017 0.074 0.132
Lumbar Steering 0.096 0.328 0.559 0.061 0.144 0.167
spine Seat 0.007 - 0.041 - 0.069 0.178 0.248 0.264
Both - 0.013 - 0.030 - 0.052 0.018 0.073 0.130

works as an absorber for some cases of vibrations which
in turn reduces the effects of vibrations on the other body
segments.
Acknowledgement-This work was supported by a grant from
the Deanship of Research and Graduate Studies, Yarmouk
University.
REFERENCES
Adams, M. A. and Hutton, W. C. (1985) Gradual disc prolapse.
Spine 10, 524-531.
Amirouche, F. M. (1987a) Biodynamic analysis of the human
body subjected to vibration. Engng Med. Biol. Magazine
22-26.
~irouche, F. M. (1987b) Modeling of human reaction to
whole-body vibration, .I. Biomeck. Engng 109, 210-217.
Bobak, K.N., Jensen, M. D. and Zaher, M. K. (1989) Maternity
and Gynecologic Cure, Maternal and Fetal Restriction (4th
~n~~hap. 15, pp. 310-311. Mosby Co., St. Louis.
Coermann, R. R. (1962) The mechanical impedance of the hu-
man body in sitting and standing positions of low frequencies.
Human Factors 4, 221-253.
Greene, P. R. and McMahon, T. A. (1979) Reflex stiffness of
man’s anti-gravity muscles during kneebends while carrying
extra weight. f. ~~ornecka~jcs 12, 881-891.
IS0 2631/DAM 1 (1978) Amendments to IS0 2631-1978. Inter.
Org~tion of Standardi~tion.
IS0 Draft Prouosal5349 (i980) Guide for the measurement and
evaluation o?human exposure to vibration transmitted to the
hand. Inter. Organization of Standardization.
Mishoe, J. W. and Suggs, C. W. (1977) Hand-arm vibration-I.
Vibrational response to the human hand. J. Sound Fib. 53,
545-548.
Mizrahi, J. and Susak, 2. (1982) In uivo elastic and damping
response of the human leg to impact forces. J. Biomeck. Engng
104,63-66.
Muks~an, R. and Nash, C. (1974) A model for the response of
seated humans to sinusoidal displacements of the seat. J.
Biomechanics 7, 209-215.
Muksian, R. and Nash. C. D. (1976) On frequency-dependent
damping coefficients in lum~d-parameter models of human
beings. J. Bio~cha~ics 9, 339-342.
Nigam, S. P. and Malik, M. (1987) A study on a vibratory model
of a human body. J. Biomech. Engng 109, 148-153.
Nokes, L. D. M. and Thorne, G. C. (1988) Vibrations in ortho-
pedics. CRC &r~t~a~ Rev. Biomed. Engng 15, 309-348.
Panjabi, M. M., Anderson, G. B. J., Jorneus, L., Hult, E. and
Mattson, L. (1984) In vivo measurements of spinal column
vibrations. J. Bone Jt Surg. 68A, 695-702.
Patil, M. K., Palanichamy, M. S. and Ghista, D. N. (1978)
Man-tractor system dynamics: towards a better suspension
system for human ride comfort. J. Biomeckanics 11, 397-406.
Pope, M. H., Broman, H. and Hansson, T. H. (1990) Factors
affecting &hedynamic response of the seated subject. J. Spinal
Disorders 3, 135-142.
Pope, M. H. and Hansson, T. H. (19923 Vibration of the spine
and low-back pain. Clin. Orth. Related Res. 279, 49-59, -
Pane, M. H., Svensson. M.. Broman, H. and Anderson, G. B. J.
fi986) Mounting of the transducers in m~suremen~ of seg-
mental motion of the spine. J. Biomeckanjcs 19, 675-677.
Qassem, W., Othman, M. and Abdul Majeed, S. (1994) The
effects of vertical and horizontal vibrations on the human
body. Med. ~ngng Pkys. 16, 151-161.
Quandieu, R. and Pellieux, L. (1982) Study in site et in viuo of the
acceleration of lumbar vertebrae of a primate exposed to
vibration in the Z-axis. J. Biomechanics 15, 981-1002.
Sandover, J. (1984) Dynamic loading as a possible source of
low-back disorders. Spine 8, 652658.
Seidel, H., Bluethner, R. and Him, B. (1986) Effects of sinusoidal
whole-body vibration on the lumbar spine: the stress-strain
relationshin. Int. Arch. &CUD. Environ. Health 57.207-223.
Seidel, H. and Heide, R, (1988) Long-term effects of whole-buy
vibration: a critical survey of the literature. ht. Arch. Occup.
Health 58, 1-26.
Sjoflot, L. and Suggs, C. W. (1973) Human reactions to whole-
body transverse angular vibrations compared to linear verti-
cal vibrations. Ergonomics 16, 455-468.
Wangenheim, M., Holtzmann, P. and Svensson, L. B. M. (1984)
Measurement of whole-body vibration by double-pulsed
holography. J. Biomeckanics 17,449-456.
Wilder, D. G., Frymoyer, J. W. and Pope, M. H. (1985) The effect
of vibration on the spine of the seated individual. Automedicu
6, s-35.
Wood, L. A., Suggs, C. W. and Abrams, C. R. (1978) Hand-arm
vibration--III. A distributed parameter dynamic model of the
hand-arm system.J. Sound Vi&. 57, 157-169.