Using Substructuring to Predict the Human Hand Influence on a Mechanical Structure

  • Sébastien Perrier
  • Yvan Champoux
  • Jean-Marc Drouet
Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)


Substructuring methods have been widely used on mechanical structures to study and improve the dynamic behavior of complex assemblies by analyzing the behavior of each substructure separately. Substructuring methods can potentially be used to create a functional link between the dynamic behavior of the human body and mechanical structures in order to enhance the interactions between the body and these same structures. Keeping in mind that significant amounts of vibrations are transmitted to the body from contact with vibrating structures – human-structure coupling interactions could be used as a way to study components of comfort during vibration exposure, and even with the goal of preventing injuries caused by transmitted vibration.

This paper investigates a coupling between a straight beam and the hand-arm system which is a non-linear structure. Each structure is characterized by experimentally obtained mechanical mobility Frequency Response Function (FRF) data over a frequency range between [5, 300] Hz. The FRF Based Substructuring method (FBS) allows coupling through the interface set of substructures. This links mechanical structures with the human body where only interface measurements are gathered. The FBS method is used to predict the dynamic behavior of the assembly.


Dynamic Behavior Grip Force Frequency Response Function Mechanical Impedance Target Measurement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Hurty WC (1960) Vibrations of structural systems by component mode synthesis. J Eng Mech/Am Soc Civil Eng 86(4):51–69Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Craig R, Bampton M (1968) Coupling of substructures for dynamic analysis. AIAA J 6(7):1313–1319MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    MacNeal R (1971) Hybrid method of component mode synthesis. Comput Struct 1(4):581–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klosterman A (1971) On the experimental determination and use of modal representations of dynamic characteristics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cincinnati, Department of Mechanical EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rubin S (1975) Improved component-mode representation for structural dynamic analysis. AIAA J 13(8):995–1006MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jetmundsen B (1986) On frequency domain methodologies for prescribed structural modification and subsystem synthesis. Ph.D. thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jetmundsen B, Bielawa R, Flanelly W (1988) Generalized frequency domain substructure synthesis. J Am Helicopter Soc 33(1):55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ewins DJ (2000) Modal testing: theory, practice and application, 2nd edn. Research Studies Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Avitabile P (2003) Twenty years of structural dynamic modification: a review. J Sound Vib 37:14–25Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Klerk D, Rixen D, De Jong J (2006) Frequency based substructuring (FBS) method reformulated according to the dual domain decomposition method. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth international modal analysis conference, society for experimental mechanics, Paper 136Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Klerk D, Rixen DJ, Voormeeren SN (2008) General framework for dynamic substructuring: history, review, and classification of techniques. AIAA J 46(5):1169–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Griffin MJ (1990) Handbook of human vibration. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mansfield NJ (2005) Human response to vibration. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    International Standard Organization, ISO 2631 (1997) Mechanical vibration and shock – evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration. International Standard Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reynolds DD, Angevine EN (1977) Hand-arm vibration, Part II: vibration transmission characteristics of the hand and arm. J sound vib 51(2):255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dong RG, Welcome DE, McDowell TW, Wu JZ (2006) Measurement of biodynamic response of human hand-arm system. J Sound Vib 294:807–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Griffin MJ, Whitham EM, Parsons KC (1982) Vibration and comfort, I. Translational seat vibration. Ergonomics 25(7):603–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Richard S, Champoux Y (2006) Development of a metric related to the dynamic comfort of a road bike. In: Proceedings of the international modal analysis conference XXIV (IMAC XXIV), St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Richard S (2005) Etude du comportement dynamique d’un vélo de route en lien avec le confort du cycliste. M.ScA thesis, Université de SherbrookeGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Burström L (1997) The influence of biodynamic factors on the mechanical impedance of the hand and arm. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 69:437–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aldien Y, Marcotte P, Rakheja S, Boileau P-E (2005) Mechanical impedance and absorbed power of hand-arm under xh-axis vibration and role of hand forces and posture. Ind Health 43:495–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aldien Y, Marcotte P, Rakheja S, Boileau P-E (2006) Influence of hand-arm posture on biodynamic response of the human hand-arm exposed to zh-axis vibration. Int J Ind Ergon 36:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Besa AJ, Valero FJ, Suñer JL, Carballeira J (2007) Characterization of the mechanical impedance of the human hand‐arm system: the influence of vibration direction, hand‐arm posture and muscle tension. Int J Ind Ergon 37:225–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lundström R, Burström L (1989) Mechanical impedance of the human hand‐arm system. Int J Ind Ergon 3:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Burström L (1990) Measurements of the impedance of the hand and arm. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 62:431–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dong RG, Rakheja S, Schopper AW, Han B, Smutz WP (2001) Hand-transmitted vibration and biodynamic response of the human hand-arm: a critical review. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 29(4):391–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    International Standard Organization, ISO/DIS 5349 (2001) Mechanical vibration – measurement and evaluation of human exposure to hand-transmitted vibration. International Standard Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Adewusi SA, Rakheja S, Marcotte P, Boileau P-E (2008) On the discrepancies in the reported human hand‐arm impedance at higher frequencies. Int J Ind Ergon 38:703–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Buisness Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sébastien Perrier
    • 1
  • Yvan Champoux
    • 1
  • Jean-Marc Drouet
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of mechanical engineeringVélUS, Université de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada

Personalised recommendations