In

seate
A Dynamic System Model of an were
betwi
thora
E. L. Wang Off-Road Cyclist tions
onai
Assistant Professor,
were
University of Nevada, Reno, To optimize the performance of off-road bicycle suspension systems, a dynamic model seat,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, of the bicycle/rider system would be usefuL. This paper takes a major step toward
Reno, NV 89557
off-n
this goal by developing a dynamic system model of the cyclist. To develop the cyclist strai!
model, a series of four vibrational tests utilizing random inputs was conducted on minii
seven experienced off-road cyclists. This allowed the transfer functions for the arms hand
M. L. Hull and legs to be determined. To reproduce the essential features (i.e., resonance peaks) the h
Professor,
of the experimental transfer functions, the system model included elements represent- In
University of California, Davis,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
ing the visceral mass along with the arms and legs. Through simulations, the frequency bar i
Davis, CA 95616 responses of the system model of the rider in each of the four ~sts were comp~ted. This
Optimal stifess and damping parameter values for each subject were determined betw
by minimizing the diference between the experimental and simulation results. Good play,
agreement between experimental and simulation results indicates that modeling the tion.
rider as a lumped parameter system with linear springs and dampers is possible. n
theF
For
rigid
Furthermore, Minetti and Belli (19) found that neglecting the used
Introduction lowe
motion of the visceral mass can cause serious errors in locomo-
The recent growth in popularity of off-road cycling, com- tion studies.
Fc
bined with the desire to increase comfort and control, has led Thus, it appears from the reviewed literature that it is possible their
to an increasing use of suspension systems in off-road bicycles. to model pars of the body such as the ars, legs, and visceral the F
To optimize. the performance of suspension systems when tra- mass using traditional lumped parameter models with linear distri
versing rough terrain, a two-dimensional dynamic system model elements. The objective of the work reported in this aricle was the s
of a bicycle and rider would be usefuL. To achieve this, however, to develop a dynamc system model of an off-road cyclist and the s

an accurate dynamic description of the rider is necessar.
Based on previous studies of the ars (1-3), legs (4-6),
and whole body (7 -12), it appears that modeling the rider as
a lumped parameter system with linear springs and dampers is
possible. While nonlinearities have been found to exist (13-
15), the nonlinearties may be neglected if the model is re-
strcted to a single body configuration, loading condition, and
small range of motion. Thus, most of the previous studies are
not directly relevant to this study because the flexion angles
used and joint moments are not typical of off-road cycling.
Since the ars and legs provide significant vibration isolation
for an off-road cyclist, they should be included as model compo-
nents. Wong and Hull (2) determined that for an on-road cy-
cling position, the ars could be modeled as a spring and
damper in parallel from the shoulders to the hands. Similarly,
Greene and McMahon ( 4 ) found that the legs could be modeled
as a spring and damper in parallel from the hip to the foot. Of
the above-mentioned previous studies dealing with the arms and
legs, these are the only two that had even remotely similar body
configurations and load lèvels to those seen in off-road cycling.
Wilczynski and Hull (16) used the studies of Wong and Hull
(2) and Greene and McMahon (4) to create a dynamic system
model of the rider. Their simulations showed that the range of
motion of the.imbs during off-road cycling is sufficiently small
to justify the use of linear elements.
Along with the ars and legs, several researchers have found
the motion of the visceral mass to be important. Zagorski et al.
(17) and Coermann (7) found that the internal organs had a
natural frequency of 2-5 Hz and 3 Hz, respectively, for seated
subjects. Garg and Ross (8) found the internal organs to have
a natural frequency of about 2 Hz for a standing subject. Muk-
identify the parameter values that resulted in the best match D~
between simulated and experimentally measured frequency re- vibn
sponse functions for seven subjects. menl
Methods
The model development involved three distinct stages: vibra-
tory testing to determne transfer funçtions for the ars and
legs, development of computer-based dynamic system models,
and an optimization on stiffness and damping parameter values.
Vibratory Tests.. To determne the frequency response
functions (FRs) of the ars and legs experimentally, a series
offour vibratory tests was conducted on seven experienced off-
road cyclists. Their masses ranged from 72.7 to. 79.5 kg (avg
= 76.3 kg, std dev = 2.2 kg) and their heights ranged from
1.5 to 1.83 m (avg = 1.80 m, std dev = 0.03 m). The first
two tests were used to determne the FRFs of the arms in flexion
and the second two were used to determne the FRs of the
legs in flexion. Each subject assumed his normal riding position
(i.e., flexion angles were not specified).
Depending on whether the ars or legs were being tested,
either a set of handlebars or a set of bicycle crank ars and
pedals was mounted on the ram of a servohydraulic actua~or.
Although the inputs to the bicycle/rider system can be as high
as 20 Hz (16), preliminar tests showed no significant rider
dynamics above 10 Hz. Thus, the ram was displaced with a
random signal (white noise) bandlimited to 12 Hz using a low-
pass filter ( 120 db/ decade rolloff). The peak-to-pe~. amplitude
was set to approximately 12 mmto produce arealistic off-road
riding level of comfort (as judged by the subjects).

sian and Nash (18) used a nonlinear model of a seated human
and found that the thoracic organs resonated at about 3 Hz.
Contributed by the Bioengineering Division for publication in the JOURAL
OF BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERIG. Manuscript received by the Bioengineering
Division March 27,1995; revised manuscript received September 16, 1996. Asso-
ciate Technical Editor: A. G. Erdman.
-
Three riding positions were tested: seated, standing, and
downhilL. In the seated position approximately 30 percent of
the rider's mass was supported by the hands (the rest was
distributed over the seat and pedals). In the standing position
only the hands (30 percent) and feet (70 percent) supported Fig. 1
the rider's mass. Finally, in the downhill position, the rider's posit
twee
feet supported most (approximately 90 percent) of the rider's
barsl
weight with the hands supporting the rest.

Transactions of the ASME Jou

248 I Vol. 119, AUGUST 1997
 In the first two tests, the ars were evaluated in both the ent dynamic system models of the rider were developed to
seated and standing positions. In each test, reflective markers simulate the four vibratory tests. The model shown in Fig. 2
were placed on the ram (the input) and the subject's spine simulated the two vibratory tests involving the arms and the
between the shoulders (the output) at approximately the fourth model shown in Fig. 3 simulated the two vibratory tests involv-
thoracic vertebra. A motion analysis system recorded the mo- ing the legs. In all cases, the segment lengths were experimen-
tions of the markers. For the seated case, the subject was seated tally measured and the inertial properties calculated via the
on a custom fixture, which positioned the seat and pedals (which regression equations given by Chandler et al. (20).
were stationary) such that the relative positions between the In the dynamic model used to simulate the ar tests, the
'L
seat, pedals, and handlebars matched that of a standard 46 cm ars were modeled as two rigid bodies connected by frictionless
1
off-road bicycle (Fig. 1). In the second test the subjects stood revolute joints with a linear spring and damper in parallel span-
:t
straight-legged and pinched the saddle between their legs to ning the handlebars and shoulders. The arm segments were
n
minimize any hip motion. The neutral vertical position of the modeled as being in a plane perpendicular to the plane of the
s
handlebars was increased 1.27 cm to accommodate the fact that bicycle and oriented such that the plane contained both the
) the hips were higher than normal (due to the straight legs). hands and the shoulders (note that, for clarity, the ars are not
In both the standing and seated tests an instrumented handle- shown in this configuration in Fig. 2). Because the shoulder
y bar monitored the average vertical force on the right hand. girdle was modeled as translationally rigid, but actually had
t.
This value was used to maintain the same weight distribution significant flexibilty, the actual mechanics of the shoulder gir-
d . between tests. A real-time .output of this force was also dis- dle were included in the arm rnodel. The inertia properties of
d played to help the subjects maintain a constant weight distribu- the shoulder were included with those of the torso. The hands
e
tion. were modeled as point masses attached to the end of the lower
The third and fourth vibratory tests were used to determne ars.
the FRFs of the legs in both the standing and downhil positions. The rider's head was modeled as rigidly connected to the
For both cases the subject used a pedal! shoe interface that torso. The torso, in turn, was modeled as a rigid body (con-
rigidly fixed the rider's feet to the pedals. The reflective marker taining the visceral mass, discussed below) pivoting about the
ie used to monitor the motion ofthe rider was placed on the rider's ischial tuberosities, which were. modeled as a fixed point. In
0- lower spine near the third lumbar vertebra. the seated case, the location of the ischial tuberosities coincided
For the standing position, the subjects were instructed to keep with the seat. In the standing position, the location of the ischial
Ie their ars locked so that the ars would not contribute to tuberosities was measured during the vibratory tests.
.al the FRF. The instrumented handlebar ensured the same weight In the dynamic model that simulated the leg tests, each leg
ar distribution as in the second arm test. In the downhill position was modeled as two rigid segments connected by frictionless
as the subjects did nót have their ars locked, but the motion of revolute joints with a linear spring and damper connecting the
id the shoulders was observed to be minimaL. hip to the crank spindle (bottom bracket). However, because
~h the model contained only one degree of freedom associated
Dynamic ModeL. Based on the literature search and the with the legs, the anke was treated as a revolute joint whose
'e-
~
vibratory tests, the model included stiffness and damping ele- location was fixed relative to the cranks. The feet were modeled
ments to represent the ars, legs, and visceral mass. Two differ-
as fixed links connecting the ankle to the cranks (also fixed).
Like the shoulders, the hip joint also has some translational
flexibility. Thus, similar to the shoulder girdle, the hips were
'a-
modeled as translationally rigid, but the actual mechanics of
rid
the hips were included in the leg portion of the modeL.
Is, In both the standing and downhil positions, the rider's torso
~s.
and ars were modeled as rigid links. The ars were modeled
se as a single link connected to the handlebars and shoulders via
ies frictionless revolute joints. This configuration resulted in the
ff- torso having pin joints at both ends (hips and shoulders), which
vg allowed translation in the horizontal direction. To prevent this
im motion, the rider's hips were constrained to move vertically.
rst For the downhill position, a torsional spring and damper were
on introduced between the legs and torso because the hip was also
he modeled as a frictionless pin joint. These elements reflected
on . that fact that the rider creates a moment about the hip to support
his upper body (recall that the hands supported only about 10
~d, percent of the weight).
nd As shown in both Figs. 2 and 3, the visceral mass was mod-
or. eled as a point mass located inside the torso. It was attached to
gh the torso at the midpoint between the shoulders and hip by a
ier linear spring and damper oriented to allow motion perpendicular
1a to the long axis of the torso. The visceral mass was assumed
,w- to be 15 percent of the total body mass (19, 31). The inertial
ide parameters for the torso given by Chandler et al. (20) were
iad reduced accordingly to account for this discretization of the
torso. The resulting inertial properties are presented in Table 1.
ind
of Parameter Determination. Once the vibration tests were
vas completed and the dynamic models developed, the stiffness and
ion damping parameter values were calculated for all four tests for
ted Fig. 1 Experimental test setup for the arms while in the seated cycling each of the seven test subjects. To accomplish this, the ampli-
:r's Position. The reflective markers are located on the subject's spine be- tude ratios were calculated for both the experiments and the
:r's tween the shoulders (near T4) and on the ram of the actuator (handle- simulations. An error function was defined and the stiffness and
bars). damping parameters were chosen to minimize the error function.

- JOurnal of Biomechanical Engineering

\lE AUGUST 1997, Vol. 119 I 249
 Table 1 Averages and standard deviations of anthropometric parame_
m-slra
ters for the seven subjects a factc

//Q:
The

.. ..
Sel!ent
upper ar
Prooert
lengt (m)
ma (kg)
Ave (std devl
0.32
4,19
(0,01)
(0.08)

iIert (kg-m') 0.031 (0,00)

0.00 (0,00)
0.029 (0.000
0.44 (0.02)
Seirent
lower ar

lower leg
Prooert
lengt (m)
ma (kg)
inerta (kg-m2)

lengt (m)
Ave (st devl
0.32 (0.1)
2.S5 (0.07)
0.016 (0.00)
0.002 (0,00)
0.015 0.001
0,44 (0.01)
the pai
of the
times :
The
compa
showe
upper leg lengt (m)
8.0:5 (0.28) ma (kg) 3.13 (0,09) displa:
ma (kg)
inertallo-m2 0.144 (0.005) inerta r1ø~m2, 0.045 (0.01) for ev(
tors lengt (m) 0.53 (0.02) hand mass ekel 0,96 (0.03) riding
ma (kg) 32.79 (0.92) foot mass ekgl 1.9 (0.04) The
inerta eke.m'i 2.221 (0.141) viscera mas (kel 11.5 (0.33) tent be
the avi
Notes: Mass and inerta for an segments is for both left and right segments combined.
Fig. 2 Dynamic system model representing the tests involving the arms. Inerta for ar segments is about segment principa axes. values
Inerta for al.other segments is about axs perpndicuar to saggta plane.
The input, x(t), represents the motion of the handlebars, and the output, Ma and inerta for leg segments is for right only (left is ased to be the sa):
betwei
y(t), represents the motion of the reflective. marker. Note that for clarity Torso ma and inerta include the bead. tremel
the arms are shown in a position different than that in which they were the lai
modeled. Solid circles represent revolute joints.
The
be see
order Runge- Kutta routine. The input displacements used in genen
Because of the random input, random data analysis tech- the simulations were the actual displacement data taken during the pi
niques were applied (22). An estimate of the amplitude ratio, the vibration tests. subjee
AR ,at frequency f was defined as The same data reduction routine that was used to calculate simila
the amplitude ratios for the experimental data was used on the from i
AR(f) = I ~Xy(f) I (1 ) output data from the simulations. The difference between the The
Sxx(f) experimental and simulation results formed the basis for the puter
cost function: discre
where Sxy(f) is the cross-spectral density function of the input N
and output, and Sxx(f) is the autospectral density function of CF = i. (ARexp(¡;) - ARmodel(f¡ ))2 (2)
the input. SXy(f) and Sxx(f) were calculated by averaging 45 i=l
subrecords of 2 seconds each (leading to 0.5 Hz resolution). where ARexp and ARmodel are the estimates of the experimental.
For all of the results presented, a normalized random error of and model amplitude ratios respectively,f¡ is the ith frequency,
less than 10 percent was maintained. and N is the total number of discrete frequencies for which the
To determne the amplitude ratio for the models, the equa- normalized random error was less than 10 percent. However,
tions of motion for each model were developed using Kane's because the estimate given by Eq. (I) does not estimate the
method (23). The equations were then integrated using a fourth- "valleys" of the FRF well (22), for the cases where a definite
"valley" existed, the lowest frequency between the two major
resonance peaks and its two neighboring frequencies were ex-
cluded from the cost function. Ths exclusion prevented "val-

(1
leys" from erroneously enlarging the cost function. The cost
function given in Eg. (2) was then minimized using Powell's

\I multivarate search technique (24).

. Since it is not possible voluntarly to alter the properties of
the visceral mass, it was assumed that the stiffness and damping
of the visceral mass did not depend on riding position. Thus,
once the optimal parameter values were obtained for all four
test cases, the parameter values associated with the visceral
mass were averaged over the four tests for each subject individu-
ally. The parameter optimizations were then performed again
with the visceral parameters constrained to the averaged values.

Results
The optimal values for the stiffness and damping parameters .
for the ars, legs, and visceral mass are presented in Table 2.
The stiffness and damping values for the hip (downhill case
only) are not shown because the parameter optimization did
not cause changes from initial values (300 N-m/rad and 50 N-
. x(t) 1
Table 2 Stiffness and damping parameter values

an
stdin
Bl daing
sub"ee 1m -fm
i 14.68 659
Fig. 3 Dynamic system model representing the tests involving the legs. 2 14.20 104
The input, x(t), represents the motion of the crank spindle, and the out- 3 )5.20 843
8.30 775
4
put, y(t), represents the motion of the reflective marker. For clarity, the , 8.93 728
torsional hip spring and damper used in the downhil position are not 6 12.98 532
7 14.70 916
shown. Solid circles represent revolute joints.

JOUI
250 I Vol. 119, AUGUST 1997 Transactions of the ASME
 r
i;

netric para me- m-slrad). Furthermore, manual adjustment of these values by The discrepancy was apparent in all the subjects that displayed
a factor of ten had no effect on the results. a prominent second peak.
The varation between subjects was quite large for most of Although the amplitude ratio plots are not shown for all the
Avo (std dev) the parameter values (Table 2). For example, for the stiffness subjects, the frequency at which the resonance peaks occurred
0.32 (0.01) of the legs in the standing position, the largest value was 2.5 was fairly consistent. For the legs in the downhill position, the
2.S5 (0.07) times larger than the smallest value. first peak ranged froID 1 to 2.5 Hz. For the legs in the standing
;;
0.016 (0.000) The damping for the ars increased for every subject when position, the peak always occurred between 2 and 4 Hz. For
~
0.002 (0.00)
comparng the seated and the standing cases. The stiffness the arms in the seated position, the peaks occurred between 2
O.OIS lO.oon
showed a similar trend for six of the seven subjects. The legs and 3.5 Hz. For the arms in the standing position, the peak was
0." (0.01)
3.13 (0.09) displayed a consistent trend of decreasing stiffness and damping between 2.5 and 3.5 Hz. Finally, for the visceral mass, the peak
0.045 (0.001) for every subject when comparing the standing and the downhil vared from 6 to 8.5 Hz.
I:'
0." (0.03) L;
riding positions.
U. (0.04) fi The stiffness values for the visceral mass were fairly consis- Discussion
.l~
II.4S (0.33) "
,,' tent both within a subject (four cases) and among subjects, with In creating the dynamic models, several assumptions were
i':
its combined. i ~, the average being about 19 kN /m. Within a subject the stiffness made. The most basic assumption was that the system could be
I.,;: values vared a maximum of 13 percent (relative to maximum) modeled using linear elements. While the elements were linear,
lplane.
10 be the sae). I' between test cases. The damping values, however, were ex- nonlinearities in the model could exist due to geometrical fac-
ß tremely inconsistent (both within and between subjects) with tors.
Li
,I the largest value being nearly 20 times that of the smallest. Preliminary tests using a swept sine wave to determine the
tl The large varation in the damping of the visceral mass can amplitude ratios indicated another source of nonlinearities. For
be seen iu the plots of the amplitude ratios (Figs. 4 and 5). In a single-component sine wave, the rider was able to adapt his
ients used in 11 general, subjects could be divided into two categories based on response by varing the muscle forces without varying flexion
taken during .l the prominence of the second resonance peak (five of seven angles (through co-contraction). To minimize the possibility of
"1 subjects exhibited prominent second peaks). Because of the adaptation, random inputs were used. Qualitatively, each subject
i to calculate stated that the inputs felt very similar to actual off-road cycling.
similarty of the results, those for only two of the subjects (one
s used on the ~ from each category) are shown. This nonlinear behavior of muscles also prevents a meaningful
: between the The agreement between the experimental data and the com- comparison of the results presented in this study to the results
basis for the of the previous studies by Wong and Hull (2) and Greene and
~ puter simulations was quite good (Figs. 4 and 5). The largest
discrepancy was in the prediction of the second peak (Fig. 4). McMahon (4).

(2)
I
experimental Arms (seated position) Arms (standing position)
th frequency, 1.2 0.9
for which the ~
:nt. However, 0.8
1.0
. estimate the
iere a definite
0
~= 0.8
~0= 0.7

:he two major i: i:

I ..
't
.. 0.6
't
cies were ex- = 0.6 =
~vented "val- .": ;i 0.5
'a 'a
ion. The cost e 0.4 e
sing Powell's -- -- 0.4
e
0.2 0.3
properties of
. and damping 0.0 0.2
osition. Thus, 0 2 4 6 8 1a 12 a 2 4 6 8 10 12
d for all four Frequency. (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
1 the visceral
)ject individu-
formed again Legs (standing position) Legs (downhil position)
~raged values. 2.00 2.00
1.75 1.75

rig parameters ~o 1.50 ~o= 1.50

id in Table 2. ~ 1.25 i: 1.25

iownhil case .. ..
imization did 'g 1.00 ~ 1.00
.":
¡ad and 50 N- 'a 0.75
e lO.75
-- 0.50 -- 0.50

¡lues 0.25 eee 0.25

viscra ma 0.00 0.00

..n o 2 4 6 8. 1a o 2 4 6 8 10 12
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)

Fig.4 Experimental (points) and simulation (solid line) amplitude ratios for all four test cases for Subject
7. These plots are representative of those subjects for which a prominent second peak was evident. Only
the amplitude ratios for which the normalized random error was less than 10 percent are reported.

JOurnal of Biomechanical Engineering AUGUST 1997, Vol. 119 I 251

of the ASME
 Arms (seated position) Arms (standing position) Ii
1.2 1.0 SUrf
mar
1.0 0.8
ve~
0 oft
~~ 0.8
'l~ is n
Il Il 0.6 mol
.. ..
't 0.6 't 1
=
.": .~
0.4
the
ø. ø. moi
e 0.4 e
~ ~ iSf
0.2
0.2 j
IJ
IJ eac
0.0 0.0 par
0 2 4 6 8 1a 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 set
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) val
opt
sol
Legs (standing position) Legs (downhil position)
tati
2.00 2.00
the
1.75 1.75 sin
uti
0 1.50 01.50
'l~ 'l~ wa
Il 1.25 Il 1.25 so
.. .. Th
't
= 1.00 'g 1.00
wi
.": ~
ø. 0.75 dy
e lO.75 m(
~ 0.50 ~ 0.50
ou
0.25 0.25 cij
lat
0.00 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 to
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
it)
Fig.5 Experimental (points) and simulation (solid line) amplitude ratios for all four test cases for Subject th
5. These plots are representative of those subjects for which a prominent second peak was not evident. so
Only the amplitude ratios for which the normalized random error was less than 10 percent are reported. ca
at
v~
Another assumption was that the second degree of freedom that the results were insensitive to this parameter within the
(DOF) was due to the motion of the visceral mass. While it is range tested.
possible that the second DOF was the head/neck in the ar The lack of interaction between the ars and legs was another c
tests and the feet! ankles for the leg tests, the likelihood that assumption. Correct body positioning required that the subject
each subject had the same ankle and neck stiffness tended to distribute his weight on both hands and feet, which allowed for vl
rule out this possibility especially in light of the varations that the possibility of the arms and legs interacting during the stand- rc
existed for the ar and leg parameter values. ing and downhill tests. To minimize this possibility, the subjects r2
There is also the possibility that during the ar tests, the locked either their ars or legs as required by the paricular C
DOF was due to the compliance of the seat fixture for the seated test. Since the model of the rider in the downhill position is fc
case and of the legs (knees locked straight) for the standing essentially the same as the model of the rider in the standing st
case. However, the likelihood of this is remote when consider- position minus the ars and the relative accuracy of each model o
ing the fact that this would explain the second resonance peaks was similar (Figs. 4 and 5), it appears that little interaction si
for only the ar tests. The second resonance peak for the leg between the arms and legs existed. ir
tests would have to come from another source (e.g., the head), Inherent in. the modeling of the visceral mass motion were b
and it is highly improbable that it would have the same reso- the assumptions that the torso acted as a rigid body and that
nance frequency as in the ar tests. the visceral mass moved perpendicular to the long axis of the
To prevent horizontal translation of the torso in both the torso. In each of the studies cited earlier involving whole body F
standing and downhil positions, the hips were constrained to vibration, the visceral mass moved vertically (along the long
vertical movement. In reality, moments generated at the shoul- axis of the torso) with a natural frequency of 2-5 Hz (17 -20). L
ders and hips are used to balance the rider, but these moments Although this motion may have been present, it was probably
are ultimately resisted by horizontal forces at the handlebars small because the only mechanisms that would cause this mo-
and pedals. Thus, creating a constraint force between the rider tion were the centrifugal forces from the rotation of the torso.
and bicycle frame seems reasonable. Thus, neglecting the longitudinal mode was probably justified.
While the logic behind the use of the hip spring (to support As for the flexibility of the torso, any motion would have
the upper body) is reasonable, the insensitivity of the model to been perpendicular to the long axis. This would have acted to
this parameter seems paradoxicaL. For a particular case and alter the effective mass and location of the viscera. While the
subject, the initial angle of rotation was such that the inclination use of a different visceral mass and location would change the
of the torso was the same for each simulation. Although the resulting óptimal stiffness and damping parameter values, there
spring must be present to support the weight of the torso, the is no guarantee that the discrepancy between simulation and
range of motion for the hip angle was so small (a few degrees) experimental results would be decreased.

252 I Vol. 119, AUGUST 1997 Transactions of the ASME

 r Health, Education, and Welfare, Wash-
In addition to modeling assumptions, the possibilty of mea-
Ii-; surement errors due to soft tissue motion existed. However, the
I,:
markers were placed on the subject's spine where the skin is
i.,
I. very thin. Additionally, large motion of the skin in the direction
l:
of travel (perpendicular to the spine in the plane of the bicycle)
n
is not possible. Consequently, it was concluded that soft tissue
U motion was negligible.
The issue of the model's uniqueness is also important. While
~ the model developed is most likely not unique in that other
model forms could attain similar accuracy, the model developed
.,
is physically plausible.
i A related concern is that the number of parameters (four for
I....'..:....
each case) also allows for the possibility of non-unique set of
parameter values for the model developed. That is, a different
I set of parameter values may result in a similar cost function
value. While local minima were checked for (by restaring the
).
optimization at different initial conditions), uniqueness of the
solution was not.
While the possibility of non-unique solutions makes interpre-
tation of the results (e.g., trends in stiffness values) difficult,
the relatively good agreement between the experimental and
simulation results encourages some discussion regarding the
utility of the models. Recall that the motivation for this study
was to develop a dynamic system model for an off-road cyclist
so that off-road bicycle suspension systems can be optimized.
The model of the cyclist described herein could be combined
with a dynamic model of an off-road bicycle (25) to create a
dynamic system model of the bicycle and rider. The combined
model could then be "ridden" over simulated terrain and vari-
ous quantities such as suspension motion, acceleration of spe-
cific points, and rider-bicycle interaction loads could be calcu-
lated. These quantities could be used in an objective function
to optimize suspension characteristics.
To determne the robustness of the optimal design, a sensitiv-
ity analysis to the input varables also would be usefuL. Because
the input varables (i.e., stiffness and damping parameters) as-
sociated with the cyclist are not independent varables, in this
case a sensitivity analysis would require changing all the var-
ables simultaneously (i.e., use a different rider). The parameter
values given in this paper would serve for such an analysis.
within the
'as another Conclusions
he subject The stiffness and damping constants for the ars, legs, and
llowed for visceral mass were determned for seven subjects in three off-
the stand-
road cycling positions. A series of four vibrational tests utilizing
ie subjects random inputs provided the experimental amplitude ratios.
particular Computer-based dynamic models of the rider in each of the
position is four tests were developed and used to determne the optimal
e standing
stiffness and damping parameter values for each subject. Based
ach model on the relatively good agreement between the experimental and
interaction simulation results, it is worthwhile to use the model in simulat-
ing the response of a rider/bicycle system to optimize off-road
Jtion were bicycle suspension performance.
y and that
lXis of the
,hole body References
g the long 1 Suggs, c. W., and Mishoe, J. W., "Hand-Ar Vibration: Implications
: (17-20). Drawn From Lumped Parameter Models," Proc. International Occupational
s probably
e this mo-
, the torso.
y justified.
'ould have
ie acted to
While the
~hange the
ilues, there
lation and
he ASME Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
Hand-Arm Vibration Conference, Dept. of
ington, DC, Publication No. (NIOSH) 77-170,1977, pp. 136-141.
2 Wong, M. G., and Hull, M. H., "Transfer Function Measurement of the
Ars in Flexion," Advances in Bioengineering, ASME, New York, 1981, pp.
167-170.
3 Bennett, D. J., Hollerbach, J. M., Xu, Y., and Hunter, i. W., "Time-Var-
ing Stiffness ofHuman Elbow Joint During Cyclic Voluntar Movement," Exper-
imental Brain Research, VoL. 88, 1992, pp. 433-442.
4 Greene, P. R., and McMahon, T. A., "Reflex Stiffness of Man's Anti-
Gravity Muscles During Kneebends While Caring Extra Weights," Journal of
Biomechanics, VoL. 12, 1979, pp. 881-891.
5 Mizrahi, J., and Susak, Z., "In-Vivo Elastic and Damping Response of
the Human Leg to Impact Forces," ASME JOURNAL OF BiOMECHANICAL ENGI-
NEERIG, VoL. 104, 1982, pp. 63-66.
6 McMahon, T. A., and Cheng, G. C., "The Mechanics of Running: How
Does Stiffness Couple With Speed?" Journal of Biomechanics, VoL. 23, Suppl.
1, 1990, pp. 65-78.
7 Coermann, R. R., "The Mechanical Impedance of the Human Body in
Sitting and Standing Position at Low Frequencies," Human Factors, VoL. 4,1962,
pp. 253-257.
8 Garg, D. P., and Ross, M. A., "Vertical Mode Human Body Vibration
Transmissibilty," IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, VoL. SMC-6, No.2,
1976, pp. 102-112.
9 Amirouche, F. M. L., "Modeling of Human Reactions to Whole-Body
Vibration," ASME JOURAL OF BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING, VoL. 109, 1987,
pp. 210-216.
10 Nigam, S. P., and Malik, M., "A Study on a Vibratory Model of a Human
Body," ASME JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICAL ENGINERIG, VoL. 109, 1987, pp.
148-153.
11 Okubo, N., and Ishida, N., "Application of CAE to Vibration and Strain
Analysis of a Bicycle," Proc. 9th International Modal Analysis Conference,
Society of Experimental Mechanics, Bethel, CT, 1991, pp. 860-865.
12 Amirouche, F. M. L., Xie, M., and Patwardhan, A., "Optimization of the
Contact Damping and Stiffness Coeffcients to Minimize Human Body Vibra-
tion," ASME JOURAL OF BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING, VoL. 116, 1994, pp.
413-420.
13 Whittmann, T. J., and Philips, N. S., "Human Body Nonlinearty and
Mechanical Impedance Analysis," Journal of Biomechanics, VoL. 2, 1969, pp.
281-288.
14 Joyce, G. C., and Rack, P. M. H., "The Effects of Load and Force on
Tremor at the Normal Elbow Joint," Journal of Physiology, VoL. 240, 1974, pp.
375-396.
15 Cundiff, J. S., "Energy Dissipation in Human Hand-Ar Exposed to Ran-
dom Vibration," Journal of American Acoustical Society, VoL. 59, 1976, pp.
212-214. '
16 Wilczynski, H., and Hull, M. L., "A Dynamc System Model for Estimat-
ing Sudace-Induced Frame Loads Durng OffcRoad Cycling," ASME Journal of
Mechanical Design, VoL. 116, 1994, pp. 816-822.
17 Zagorski, J., Jakubowski, R., Solecki, L., Sad10, A., and Kasperek, W.,
Vibrations in Human Organism Exposed to Low-
"Studies on the Transmission of
Frequency Whole-Body Vibration," Acta Physiologica Poland, VoL. 27, 1976,
pp.347-354.
18 Muksian, R., and Nash, C. D., Jr, "A Model for the Response of Seated
Humans to Sinusoidal Displacements of the Seat," Journal of Biomechanics,
VoL. 7, 1974, pp. 209-215.
19 Minetti, A., and Belli, G., "A Model for the Estimation of Visceral Mass
Displacement in Periodic Movements," Journal of Biomechanics, VoL. 27, 1994,
pp.97-101.
20 Chandler, R. F., Clauser, C. E., McConvile, i. T., Reynolds, H. M., and
Young, J. W., "Investigation of Inertial Propertes of the Human Body," Aero-
space Medical Research Laboratory, Report No. DOT HS-801430, 1975.
21 McConvile, J. T., Churchill, T. D., Ka1eps, I., Clauser, C. E., and Cuzzi,
J., "Anthopometrc Relationships of Body and Body Segment Moment òf Iner-
tia," Ai Force Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Report No. AFAMRL-
TR-80-119, 1980.
22 Bendat, J. S., and Piersol, A. G., Random Data, Analysis and Measurement
Procedures, Wiley, New York, 1986.
23 Kane, T. R., and Levinson, D. A., Dynamics: Theory and Application,
McGraw-Hil, New York, 1985.
24 Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., Flannery, B. P., Numeri-
cal Recipes in FORTRA, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,
Chap. io, 1992.
25 Wang, E. L., and Hull, M. L., "A Model for Determning Rider Induced
Energy Losses in Bicycle Suspension Systems," Vehicle System Dynamics, VoL.
25, 1996, pp. 223-246.
AUGUST 1997, Vol. 119 I 253