Computational Methods Application of Musculoskeletal Analysis for Seating Comfort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The design of seats in the aerospace industry is more challenging when compared to other industries, such as the automotive industry. The limitations from the different regulations imposed by the aviation regulatory agencies around the world make it difficult to design for comfort with full flexibility, furthermore, weight reduction is a primary design objective that consistently influences design choices in all aspects of aerospace design which tends to add layer of complexity during the design process of aerospace applicable products. The standard seat designing process in the literature includes a combination of computational and experimental methods, such as the use of finite element methods (FEM), pressure mat sensors, or subjective questionnaires. However, the previous methods provide insight into the external forces acting on the human body while also providing the designer of seats with the capability to include multiple computer-simulated design configurations in their design methodology and to compare the results of several design configurations to find the optimal design across different prototypes. The objective of this thesis is to investigate an additional level of insight on comfort levels, by examining internal forces that are occurring in the muscles by using inputs such as external forces and seat postures on a musculoskeletal model. This thesis describes the methodology of simulations, development, and evaluation of comfort evaluation in the neck muscles; Sternocleidomastoid (SCM), and Upper Trapezius as a pilot study of this new approach for comfort evaluation in seat designing processes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".