4.7 Article

Identifying nonlinear biomechanical models by multicriteria analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF SOUND AND VIBRATION
卷 331, 期 5, 页码 1207-1216

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsv.2011.10.019

关键词

-

资金

  1. Serbian Ministry of Education and Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the methodology developed by Srdjevic and Cveticanin (International journal of Industrial Ergonomics 34 (2004) 307-318) for the nonbiased (objective) parameter identification of the linear biomechanical model exposed to vertical vibrations is extended to the identification of n-degree of freedom (DOF) nonlinear biomechanical models. The dynamic performance of the n-DOF nonlinear model is described in terms of response functions in the frequency domain, such as the driving-point mechanical impedance and seat-to-head transmissibility function. For randomly generated parameters of the model, nonlinear equations of motion are solved using the Runge-Kutta method. The appropriate data transformation from the time-to-frequency domain is performed by a discrete Fourier transformation. Squared deviations of the response functions from the target values are used as the model performance evaluation criteria, thus shifting the problem into the multicriteria framework. The objective weights of criteria are obtained by applying the Shannon entropy concept The suggested methodology is programmed in Pascal and tested on a 4-DOF nonlinear lumped parameter biomechanical model. The identification process over the 2000 generated sets of parameters lasts less than 20 s. The model response obtained with the imbedded identified parameters correlates well with the target values, therefore, justifying the use of the underlying concept and the mathematical instruments and numerical tools applied. It should be noted that the identified nonlinear model has an improved accuracy of the biomechanical response compared to the accuracy of a linear model. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据