Three-Dimensional Biomechanical Modeling for Sitting Contact Stress Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a three-dimensional biomechanical model of the upper body and analyzes the interaction between the upper body and aircraft seat backrest for different sitting postures and backrest recline angles. The reclined sitting postures of the upper body are defined based on the available spine biomechanical data and the multibody inverse kinematics method. The contact loadings on each contacted spine segment are calculated based on the Newton-Euler dynamic formulation. The backrest contact pressure distribution is simulated using the contact stress theory based on the calculated forces on the backrest. The resultant force and pressure distribution show how the backrest inclination and lateral bending of the trunk affect the backrest loading and contact condition. The simulation results are compared to the experimental measurement for validation, and a good correspondence is found. The parameters, including the average and maximum pressure, and pressure standard deviation based on the pressure distribution, are also compared, and the maximum simulation error is 11.5% on the average pressure. Limitations of the model are discussed. The model proposed in this paper can analyze more posture cases than previous studies that focused on the two-dimensional scenarios. The loading and pressure prediction model can be applied for backrest design evaluation and facilitate seat design optimization.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".