Mechanical Impedance and Absorbed Power of Hand-Arm under xh-Axis Vibration and Role of Hand Forces and Posture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The biodynamic responses of the hand-arm system under x(h)-axis vibration are investigated in terms of the driving point mechanical impedance (DPMI) and absorbed power in a laboratory study. For this purpose, seven healthy male subjects are exposed to two levels of random vibration in the 8-1,000 Hz frequency range, using three instrumented cylindrical handles of different diameters (30, 40 and 50 mm), and different combinations of grip (10, 30 and 50 N) and push (0, 25 and 50 N) forces. The experiments involve grasping the handle while adopting two different postures, involving elbow flexion of 90 degrees and 180 degrees, with wrist in the neutral position for both postures. The analyses of the results revealed peak DPMI magnitude and absorbed power responses near 25 Hz and 150 Hz, for majority of the test conditions considered. The frequency corresponding to the peak response increased with increasing hand forces. Unlike the absorbed power, the DPMI response was mostly observed to be insensitive to variations in the excitation magnitude. The handle diameter revealed obvious effects on the DPMI magnitude, specifically at frequencies above 250 Hz, which was not evident in the absorbed power due to relatively low velocity at higher frequencies. The influence of hand forces was also evident on the DPMI magnitude response particularly at frequencies. above 100 Hz, while the effect of hand-arm posture on the DPMI magnitude was nearly negligible. The magnitude of power absorbed within the hand and arm was observed to be strongly dependent upon the excitation level over the entire frequency range, while the influence of hand-arm posture on the total absorbed power was observed to be important. The effect of variations in the hand forces on the absorbed power was relatively small for the bent elbow posture, while an increase in either the grip or the push force coupled with the extended arm posture resulted in considerably higher energy absorption. The results suggested that the handle size, hand-arm posture and hand forces, produce coupled effect on the biodynamic response of the hand-arm system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".