Dynamic Characteristics of the Human Body

  • H. E. von Gierke


Most studies of the mechanical properties of the human body have been conducted on isolated organs, body segments, limbs or tissue specimens. For these the static and dynamic functions under internal muscle loads or external forces, the geometry and structure are relatively well defined. Results of this type have reached a high degree of sophistication using the whole framework of modern engineering dynamics and stress analysis in the course of the studies. However, if we are interested in the behaviour of the whole body or larger segments of it and are not willing to restrict ourselves to specific force inputs or loads, the number of studies conducted and the information available become less and less. The reasons for this are at least threefold: (1) the overall system becomes extremely complex and its mechanical functions and abuses very manifold. Although engineering systems of high complexity; as for example aircraft, are analysed by dynamic models with respect to their dynamic responses and stress loads down to their individual subsystems and components, they have the advantage of being built of materials with known and understood material properties.


Injury Mechanism Transmission Ratio Force Input Rocket Thrust Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen, R., Wade, H., Jex, R., and Magdaleno, R. E. 1972: Vibration effects on manual control performance. Presented at the Eighth Annual NASA-University Conference on Manual Control, University of Michigan, May.Google Scholar
  2. Band, E. G. U. 1971: Calculation of rocket powered trajectories of a ‘plane of symmetry’ model of a human subject and ejection seat. AMRL-TR-7. AMRL, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.Google Scholar
  3. Bowen, I. G., Fletcher, E. R., Richmond, D. R., Hirsch, F. G., and White, C. S. 1968: Biophysical mechanisms and scaling procedures in assessing responses of the thorax energised by air-blast overpressures or by non-penetrating missiles. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 125: 122–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brinkley, J. W. 1968: Development of aerospace escape systems. Air University Review, July/Aug, 34–49.Google Scholar
  5. Coermann, R. R., Ziegenruecker, G., Wittwer, A. L., and Von Gierke, H. E. 1960: The passive dynamic mechanical properties of the human thorax-abdomen system and of the whole body system. Aerospace Medicine 31: 443.Google Scholar
  6. Dieckmann, D. 1957: Einfluss vertikaler mechanischer Schwingungen auf den Menschen. Intern. Z. angew. Physiol. einschl. Arbeitsphysiol. 16: 519.Google Scholar
  7. Edwards, R. G. E. P., Mccutcheon, E. P., and Knapp, C. F. 1972: Cardiovascular changes produced by brief whole-body vibration of animals. J. Appl. Physiology 32: 386–390.Google Scholar
  8. Huston, R. L., and Passerello, C. E. 1971: On the dynamics of a human body model. J. of Biomechanics 4: 369–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kaleps, I., Von Gierke, H. E., and Weis, E. B. 1970: A five degree of freedom mathematical model of the body. AMRL–TR–71–29–8, Symposium on Biodynamic Models and Their Applications, Oct., Wright–Patterson AFB, Ohio.Google Scholar
  10. Mchenry, R. R. 1970: Multidegree, nonlinear mathematical models of the human body and restraint systems: applications in the engineering design of protective systems. AMRL–TR–71–29–7, Symposium on Biodynamic Models and Their Applications, Wright–Patterson AFB, Ohio.Google Scholar
  11. Nixon, C. W., and Sommer, H. C. 1963: Influence of selected vibrations upon speech-range of 2 cps-20 cps and random. AMRL-TDR-63–49, (AD 416 816), Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, June.Google Scholar
  12. O’Briant, C. R., and Ohlbaum, M. K. 1970: Visual acuity decrement in whole body ±Gz vibration. Aerospace Medicine 41: 79–82.Google Scholar
  13. Payne, P. R., and Band, I. G. U. 1971: A four-degree-offreedom lumped parameter model of the seated human body. AMRL-TR-70–35, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, Jan.Google Scholar
  14. Payne, P. R. 1970: The human spine—a critical review of existing dynamic data in relation to aircraft escape systems. AMRL–TR–71–29–9, Symposium on Biodynamic Models and Their Applications, Oct., Wright–Patterson AFB, Ohio.Google Scholar
  15. Potemkin, B. A., and Frolov, K. V. 1971: Simulated representations of the biomechanical human operator system with random vibration. DoKlady Akademii Nauk SSSR 197: 1284–1287.Google Scholar
  16. Sandover, J. 1971: Study of human analogues: part 1, a survey of the literature. Dept. of Ergonomics and Cybernetics, Loughborough University of Technology, England, April.Google Scholar
  17. von Gierke, H. E. 1964: Biodynamic response of the human body. Applied Mechanics Review 17: 951–958.Google Scholar
  18. von Gierke, H. E. 1971a: In Symposium on biodynamic models and their applications. AMRL-TR-71–29, Wight-Patterson AFB, Ohio.Google Scholar
  19. von Gierke, H. E. 197lb: Physiological and performance effects on the aircrew during low-altitude, high-speed flight missions. AMRL-TR-70–67, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.Google Scholar
  20. von Gierke, H. E. 1971c: Biodynamic models and their applications. J. Acoustical Society of America 50: 1397–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vogt, H. L., Coermann, R. R., and Fust, H. D. 1968: Impedance of sitting human under sustained acceleration. Aerospace Medicine 39: 675–679.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bioengineering Unit, University of Strathclyde 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. E. von Gierke
    • 1
  1. 1.Aerospace Medical Research LaboratoryWright-Patterson Air Force BaseUSA

Personalised recommendations