The horizontal apparent mass of the standing human body

Abstract The driving-point dynamic responses of standing people (e.g. their mechanical impedance or apparent mass) influence their dynamic interactions with structures on which they are supported. The apparent mass of the standing body has been reported previously for vertical excitation but not for lateral or fore-and-aft excitation. Twelve standing male subjects were exposed to fore-and-aft and lateral random vibration over the frequency range 0.1–5.0 Hz for 180 s at four vibration magnitudes: 0.016, 0.0315, 0.063, and 0.125 m s−2 rms. With lateral excitation at 0.063 m s−2 rms, subjects also stood with three separations of the feet. The dynamic forces measured at the driving-point in each of the three translational axes (i.e. fore-and-aft, lateral and vertical) showed components not linearly related to the input vibration, and not seen in previous studies with standing subjects exposed to vertical vibration or seated subjects exposed to vertical or horizontal vibration. A principal peak in the lateral apparent mass around 0.5 Hz tended to decrease in both frequency and magnitude with increasing magnitude of vibration and increase with increasing separation of the feet. The fore-and-aft apparent mass appeared to peak at a frequency lower than the lowest frequency used in the study.

[1]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  Michael J. Griffin,et al.  Nonlinear dual-axis biodynamic response of the semi-supine human body during longitudinal horizontal whole-body vibration , 2008 .

[3]  Michael J. Griffin,et al.  The apparent mass of the seated human body in the fore-and-aft and lateral directions , 1990 .

[4]  M J Griffin,et al.  The apparent mass of the seated human body: vertical vibration. , 1989, Journal of biomechanics.

[5]  Michael J. Griffin,et al.  EFFECT OF MUSCLE TENSION ON NON-LINEARITIES IN THE APPARENT MASSES OF SEATED SUBJECTS EXPOSED TO VERTICAL WHOLE-BODY VIBRATION , 2002 .

[6]  Michael J Griffin,et al.  Non-linear characteristics in the dynamic responses of seated subjects exposed to vertical whole-body vibration. , 2002, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[7]  Neil J. Mansfield,et al.  Comparison of the apparent masses and cross-axis apparent masses of seated humans exposed to single- and dual-axis whole-body vibration , 2006 .

[8]  Michael J. Griffin,et al.  Apparent mass and cross-axis apparent mass of standing subjects during exposure to vertical whole-body vibration , 2006 .

[9]  Michael J. Griffin,et al.  Non-linear dual-axis biodynamic response to vertical whole-body vibration , 2003 .

[10]  M. Griffin,et al.  Non-linearities in apparent mass and transmissibility during exposure to whole-body vertical vibration. , 2000, Journal of biomechanics.

[11]  Michael J. Griffin,et al.  DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF THE STANDING HUMAN BODY EXPOSED TO VERTICAL VIBRATION: INFLUENCE OF POSTURE AND VIBRATION MAGNITUDE , 1998 .

[12]  Horst Peter Wölfel,et al.  Apparent mass of seated men : determination with single- and multi-axis excitations at different magnitudes , 2006 .

[13]  Ronnie Lundström,et al.  Mechanical impedance of the human body in the horizontal direction , 1998 .

[14]  Michael J. Griffin,et al.  Comparison of biodynamic responses in standing and seated human bodies , 2000 .

[15]  Ralph Blüthner,et al.  MYOELECTRIC RESPONSE OF BACK MUSCLES TO VERTICAL RANDOM WHOLE-BODY VIBRATION WITH DIFFERENT MAGNITUDES AT DIFFERENT POSTURES , 2002 .

[16]  L. Wei,et al.  THE PREDICITON OF SEAT TRANSMISSIBILITY FROM MEASURES OF SEAT IMPEDANCE , 1998 .

[17]  Michael J. Griffin,et al.  Non-linear dual-axis biodynamic response to fore-and-aft whole-body vibration , 2005 .

[18]  B Hinz,et al.  The nonlinearity of the human body's dynamic response during sinusoidal whole body vibration. , 1987, Industrial health.