Integrating Biodynamic Measurements in Frequency-Based Substructuring to Study Human-Structure Interaction

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


The mechanical behavior of the human body has long been characterized using biodynamic measurements on various human body parts in several positions and postures. Generally, these measurements are gathered as close as possible to the skin-mechanical structure interface for best results understanding how the body reacts when in contact with a vibrating structure. Substructuring methods have been widely used on mechanical structures to study and improve the dynamic behavior of complex assemblies. In the case of interactions between a human body and a vibrating structure, the dynamics involved in the structure alone is as important as the dynamics of the human body. Thus, the use of Frequency-Based Substructuring (FBS) to combine biodynamic measurements with the structure’s dynamic behavior is essential to understanding the vibration transmission phenomena in this complex assembly.

This article presents the advantages of this approach as well as the challenges when performing FBS between a mechanical structure and biodynamic measurements. The study focuses on a vibrating handlebar in conjunction with 3 different holding positions of the hand-arm system. The FBS assemblies are gathered and the results are compared with experimental measurements on the entire assembled structure for each position over a frequency range between 1 and 100 Hz.


Biodynamics Substructuring Human-structure interaction Experimental measurements Structural dynamics 



The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the National Science and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC) and the participation of Cervélo and Vroomen – White Design.


  1. 1.
    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 Indust Ergon 38:703–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Burström L (1990) Measurements of the impedance of the hand and arm. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 62:431–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Dong RG, Welcome DE, McDowell TW, Wu JZ (2008) Analysis of handle dynamics-induced errors in hand biodynamic measurements. J Sound Vib 318:1313–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    Griffin MJ (1990) Handbook of human vibration. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Griffin MJ, Whitham EM, Parsons KC (1982) Vibration and comfort, I. translational seat vibration. Ergonomics 25(7):603–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    International Standard Organization (ISO 2631) (1997) Mechanical vibration and shock—evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration. International Standard OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    International Standard Organization (ISO/DIS 5349) (2001) Mechanical vibration—measurement and evaluation of human exposure to hand-transmitted vibration. International Standard OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lundström R, Burström L (1989) Mechanical impedance of the human hand‐arm system. Int J Ind Ergon 3:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marcotte P, Aldien Y, Boileau P-E, Rakheja S, Boutin J (2005) Effect of handle size and hand-handle contact force on the biodynamic response of the hand-arm system under z h-axis vibration. J Sound Vib 283:1071–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mansfield NJ (2005) Human response to vibration. CRCGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Richard S (2005) Étude du comportement dynamique d’un vélo de route en lien avec le confort du cycliste. MScA Thesis, Université de SherbrookeGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Richard S, Champoux Y (2006) Development of a metric related to the dynamic comfort of a road bike. In: Proceedings of the IMAC XXIV, St. Louis, 2006Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Avitabile P (2003) Twenty years of structural dynamic modification: a review. Sound Vib 14–25Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Craig R, Bampton M (1968) Coupling of substructures for dynamic analysis. AIAA J 6(7):1313–1319MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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 136, 2006Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Klerk D, Rixen DJ, Voormeeren SN, (2008) General framework for dynamic substructuring—history, review, and classification of techniques. AIAA J 46(5)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ewins DJ (2000) Modal testing: theory, practice and application, 2nd edn. Research Studies PressGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hurty WC (1960) Vibrations of structural systems by component mode synthesis. J Eng Mech/Am Soc Civil Eng 86(4):51–69Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jetmundsen B (1986) On frequency domain methodologies for prescribed structural modification and subsystem synthesis. PhD Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jetmundsen B, Bielawa R, Flanelly W (1988) Generalized frequency domain substructure synthesis. J Am Helicop Soc 33(1):55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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
  29. 29.
    MacNeal R (1971) Hybrid method of component mode synthesis. Comput Struct 1(4):581–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mayes RL (2012) Tutorial on experimental dynamic substructuring using the transmission simulator method. In: Proceedings of the 30th international modal analysis conference. Society for experimental mechanics (Topics in experimental dynamics substructuring and wind turbine dynamics), pp 1–9Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Perrier SS, Champoux Y, Drouet J-M (2012) Using substructuring to predict the human hand influence on a mechanical structure. In: Proceedings of the 30th international modal analysis conference. Society for Experimental Mechanics (Topics in experimental dynamics substructuring and wind turbine dynamics), pp 33–44Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lépine J, Champoux Y, Drouet J-M (2011) Excitation techniques for testing bike vibration transmission in the laboratory. In: Proceedings of the 29th International modal analysis conference. Society for experimental mechanics (Sensors, Instrumentation and Special Topics), p 35Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations