Theoretical foundation, methods, and criteria for calibrating human vibration models using frequency response functions
Introduction
The characterization of human vibration biodynamics is important for understanding vibration effects and for assessing the risks of vibration exposures [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The biodynamic responses are basically a passive mechanical process, similar to the responses of many engineering structures to vibration. In engineering, the model of a system is usually constructed using a forward dynamic approach, in which the dynamic properties of the system are directly measured and used in the model to predict the dynamic responses. Because it is difficult to directly measure the biodynamic properties of living human subjects, human vibration models are most frequently constructed using an inverse dynamic approach or a hybrid forward and inverse approach [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. The inverse approach estimates the unknown biodynamic properties of a model using the measured time-history responses (forces and motions) and/or frequency response functions (apparent mass, mechanical impedance, and vibration transmissibility) of the system. Mathematically, the property parameters are determined by imposing matches between modeled responses/functions and the corresponding measured responses/functions. In principle, this imposed matching process passes the dynamic properties included in the reference data to the model, similar to the calibration of an accelerometer. In engineering modeling, this process is usually termed as parameter identification, as it is only used to identify the unknown values of one or a few well-defined parameters of a model that provides a close simulation of an engineering system [13], [14]. In contrast, the vast majority of human vibration models are lumped-parameter models that only provide a very crude simulation of the complex human body structure. The exact physical representations of some model components are not known or predetermined before their values are identified. Their representations are actually interpreted according to their values. As a result, the components in the same model structure may represent different parts or properties of the human body or segment, depending on the characteristics of the reference functions used in the modeling, as observed in our previous studies [9], [15]. Therefore, this process not only calibrates the values of the model parameters, but it may also calibrate the physical meanings of some model components. It may be more appropriate to refer to this process as model calibration in human vibration modeling.
Such model calibration makes it possible for many researchers to efficiently construct human vibration models for understanding the basic characteristics and motion mechanisms of human biodynamic responses using inexpensive modeling techniques. This further explains why the vast majority of human vibration models have been developed using this approach. Such models are also adequate and efficient for enhancing the designs, analyses, and evaluations of tools, seats, and anti-vibration devices [16], [17], [18], and/or for constructing test apparatuses or human test dummies [19], [20]. To help further understand vibration effects and to help assess the risks of vibration exposures, it is required to improve such models for better predictions and understanding of the biodynamic responses in the human body. A major deficiency of the reported lumped-parameter models is that they may not be used to predict the dynamic forces at many joints and the vibration power absorption distributed in different tissues, as these models do not provide a reasonable simulation of the relationships among the bones, joints and soft tissues. Although vibration is likely to be primarily transmitted through the bones and joints, these structures only account for less than 20 percent of the body mass [21]; the soft tissues account for the vast majority of the body mass and are thus likely to play a major role in determining the overall responses, according to a recently derived theorem [22]. While it is not difficult to configure a model that separately simulates the bones, joints, and soft tissues, it remains a formidable research task to determine how such models can be reliably calibrated and reasonably validated. Enhancing the understanding of model calibration may accelerate the development of such models.
Based on function, human vibration models are conventionally classified into three categories: mechanistic, quantitative, and effects models [23]. A set of validation criteria and a checklist for the models in each category have also been proposed [23]. Because these criteria are not based on the concept of model calibration, they do not systemically and directly address the technical issues and requirements of the model development using the inverse dynamic approach. Instead, the human vibration modeling society generally interprets model calibrations only as quantitative summaries of biodynamic measurements [23], similar to the statistical regressions used in the analyses of experimental data. According to such limited understanding, the majority of the reported human vibration models are classified as quantitative models [23]. Such a classification actually incorrectly considers the quantitative summaries as the final function of these models, as the endpoints of these models are not the quantitative summaries but they are primarily for the above-mentioned applications. This classification also contradicts the major purposes of such computer modeling − to predict the responses or parameters that cannot be directly measured and/or to understand the phenomena that cannot be easily understood from the experimental data themselves. Another questionable practice is that, according to how quantitative models are defined, these models are often considered to be validated as long as they can provide a good curve fit to a set of measured data. Because there is no uniform specification for judging the goodness of curve fitting in human vibration modeling, many studies have portrayed their models as being validated simply because those models reflect the study’s best curve fits; there is often insufficient assessment of the model’s ability to represent the targeted biodynamic properties or response functions. Such a practice is problematic for the following reasons: (i) the best curve fitting can always be achieved for any experimental data on any model, even if its equations of motion include serious errors, as observed in a recently reported study [24]; (ii) the best curve fitting can also be achieved even if the reference functions include significant errors, and/or the transmissibility measured on one substructure is used to represent the vibrations of other substructures, which are also observed in the reported study [24]. Obviously, more effective validation criteria that directly address these issues are required for the further development and evaluation of human vibration models.
Also because there is lack of understanding of model calibration, it is not clear how to appropriately select and apply the specific calibration schemes. While apparent mass or impedance has been used to calibrate some models [7], [8], [9], vibration transmissibility has been used to calibrate some other models [10], [25], [26]. However, more researchers have used both transmissibility and driving-point response functions [6], [24], [27]. Some of these researchers hypothesized that such a combination would provide a more reliable calibration [24], [27]. The current study hypothesized that the best choice of the calibration method depends on many factors, which may include the specific application of the model, the model structure, and the availability and reliability of the reference functions. Further studies are required to test these hypotheses.
In many cases, it is difficult to clearly differentiate or categorize these models, especially the mechanistic and quantitative models, as they usually both include mechanistic and quantitative components. Even though some finite element models were originally developed using the forward modeling approach, some of the element properties have to be adjusted through model calibration so that the modeling predictions can be more reliable [11], [28]; the biodynamic properties are usually measured with cadaver tissues that may not be fully representative of live subject properties, and the individual differences may further increase the complexities and difficulties. On the other hand, some models were originally developed to simulate the biodynamic measurements, but they can be considered as mechanistic models after their parameters are understood and can be physically associated with the specific substructures of the human body or segments [9], [15]. As such merging marks the advancement of modeling knowledge [23], the hybrid forward and inverse dynamic approach is likely to be more frequently used in the future. It is important to formulate the calibration validation criteria that are generally applicable to models in every category.
Based on this background, the specific aims of this study are to review and enhance the theoretical foundation for human model calibration, to systematically examine the calibration methods, to identify their basic criteria and requirements, and to explore the improvements of the calibration methods. This study also proposed some new interpretations of the reported models.
Section snippets
Basic theory and methodology
Fig. 1 shows a flowchart that outlines the theoretical basis and major activities of this study. Similar to the forward dynamic approach, the inverse dynamic approach can be applied to any model with linear or nonlinear dynamic properties [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. The human body or segment has some nonlinear properties. For example, the stiffness of the body tissues generally increases with the increase in applied forces or the force-induced tissue deformation [29]; as a
The sufficiency of reference functions
This section addresses the second criterion by identifying how many and which reference functions are necessary to achieve a unique solution of the parameters for each calibration method.
The accuracy and representativeness of reference functions
This section discusses the issues related to the third and fourth criteria presented in Section 2.5. In reality, no model structure can fully represent the human body; every measured reference function includes some errors. It is also impossible to synthesize a VT function that provides an exact representation of the overall vibration of a substructure. For these reasons, no modeling response function can precisely match the measured reference data. While further studies are required to improve
Evaluations, interpretations, and improvements of the model calibration
The development of human vibration models is usually an iterative process. The examination and improvement of the calibrated models may be performed at any stage of the development. While it is beyond the scope of this study to address all the aspects of model validation according to the proposed criteria, some examples are introduced in this section to demonstrate the applications of the above-presented theories and methods to evaluate, interpret, and improve the model calibration.
Conclusions
Based on a novel theorem and general knowledge of mechanical vibration, this study enhanced the understanding of the mathematical and physical principles of the model calibration using frequency response functions. Building upon this enhanced understanding, a set of criteria was proposed to guide the development of human vibration models. Guided by these criteria, this study systematically examined the three typical calibration methods. Besides theoretical analyses, a novel numerical testing
Disclaimer
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
References (45)
- et al.
Development of a biomechanical model of the human body in a sitting posture with vibration transmissibility in the vertical direction
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
(2005) - et al.
A model of the vertical apparent mass and the fore-and-aft cross-axis apparent mass of the human body during vertical whole-body vibration
Journal of Sound and Vibration
(2009) - et al.
Mathematical models for the apparent mass of the seated human body exposed to vertical vibration
Journal of Sound and Vibration
(1998) - et al.
Modeling of biodynamic responses distributed at the fingers and the palm of the human hand–arm system
Journal of Biomechanics
(2007) - et al.
An analytical investigation of an energy flow divider to attenuate hand-transmitted vibration
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
(1996) - et al.
A method for analyzing vibration power absorption density in human fingertip
Journal of Sound and Vibration
(2010) - et al.
Transfer functions as a basis for the verification of models – variability and restraints
Clinical Biomechanics
(2001) - et al.
On the identification and modelling of friction in a randomly excited energy harvester
Journal of Sound and Vibration
(2013) - et al.
Modeling of the biodynamic responses distributed at the fingers and palm of the hand in three orthogonal directions
Journal of Sound and Vibration
(2013) - et al.
Analysis of anti-vibration gloves mechanism and evaluation methods
Journal of Sound and Vibration
(2009)
MEMOSIK V – an active dummy for determining three-directional transfer functions of vehicle seats and vibration exposure ratings for the seated occupant
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
Theoretical relationship between vibration transmissibility and driving-point response functions of the human body
Journal of Sound and Vibration
The validation of biodynamic models
Clinical Biomechanics Supplement
Biomechanical models of the human hand−arm to simulate distributed biodynamic responses for different postures
International journal of Industrial Ergonomics
Simulation and analysis of a biodynamic human model subjected to low accelerations – a correlation study
Journal of Sound and Vibration
An improved biomechanical model for simulating the strain of the hand–arm system under vibration stress
Journal of Biomechanics
A body mass dependent mechanical impedance model for applications in vibration seat testing
Journal of Sound and Vibration
Dynamic FE model of sitting man adjustable to body height, body mass and posture used for calculating internal forces in the lumbar vertebral disks
Journal of Sound and Vibration
Biodynamic response of the hand−arm system to vibration from an impact hammer and a grinder
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
On the identification of hysteretic systems. Part I: fitness landscapes and evolutionary identification
Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing
Natural computing for mechanical systems research: a tutorial overview
Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing
Problems of mechanical model identification for human body under vibration
Mechanism and Machine Theory
Cited by (23)
An analytical model of seated human body exposed to combined fore-aft, lateral, and vertical vibration verified with experimental modal analysis
2023, Mechanical Systems and Signal ProcessingDevelopment of a two-dimensional dynamic model of the foot-ankle system exposed to vibration
2020, Journal of BiomechanicsCitation Excerpt :However, models based on measured transmissibility which considered the anatomical structures, performed poorly (Cherian et al., 1996; Fritz, 1991). Consequently, methodologies using both the DPMI and the measured transmissibility have been developed (Adewusi et al., 2012; Dong et al., 2015). To date, there are few models describing the response of the foot to vibration (Gefen, 2003, Kim and Voloshin, 1995; Simkin and Leichter, 1990).
Effect of sitting posture and seat on biodynamic responses of internal human body simulated by finite element modeling of body-seat system
2019, Journal of Sound and VibrationModels of the human in dynamic environments
2019, DHM and PosturographyA model for simulating vibration responses of grinding machine-workpiece-hand-arm systems
2018, Journal of Sound and VibrationCitation Excerpt :While the drive wheel mass and the club head mass can be directly measured, it is difficult to directly measure the other parameters of the system model shown in Fig. 2. This study used a model calibration method to determine the remaining parameters, except k2 and c2, using measured frequency response functions (mechanical impedance and vibration transmissibility) of the system subjected to the excitation resulting from FW, similar to those widely used in the human vibration modeling [12–14,17–20]. While k2 and c2 cannot be determined in the model calibration using these reference functions, and their actual values do not affect the calibration of the other parameters, a parametric study was conducted to estimate their effects on the vibration responses of the system when FC was applied to predict the system responses.