Speed bumps are globally used to calm the traffic, thereby enhancing passenger and pedestrian safety. However, they significantly affect the rider ergonomics, especially for a two-wheeler. Thus, their design should incorporate passenger comfort as well. This research aims to investigate the biomechanical response of a two-wheeler rider traversing a rigid circular speed bump using a nonlinear spring-mass-damper model (SMD). The incorporates the contact between the tire and the speed bump (with potential detachment) and captures the vertical movement of the two-wheeler and the human body. Initially, the credibility of the kinematically simple SMD (for this analysis) is validated by comparing its results with those from a reliable and well-established multibody modelling technique. Additionally, several simplified SMDs are derived and compared. The article further documents the ergonomic effects (qualitatively and quantitatively) of speed bump dimensions and vehicular speeds along with physical interpretations. The results highlight the significant role of the bump dimensions and the vehicle speed in human discomfort. The study also investigates two simple novel vehicle design concepts for their effectiveness in improving rider ergonomics. The predictions from the developed model are compared with a few published works and are also validated against controlled experiments developed in-house. The findings offer significant insights into the influence of speed bumps on two-wheeler rider ergonomics, which can eventually lead to an ergonomically better design (of two-wheeler and speed bump).
BansalPDuaRKruegerR, et al. Fuel economy valuation and preferences of Indian two-wheeler buyers. J Clean Prod2021; 294: 126328.
2.
ISO. Mechanical vibration and shock: Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration. International Organization for Standardization, 1985.
3.
ISO. Mechanical vibration and shock-evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration-part 1: general requirements. International Organization for Standardization, 1997.
4.
ISO. Mechanical vibration and shock—range of idealized values to characterize seated-body biodynamic response under vertical vibration. International Organization for Standardization, 2002.
5.
SpleringsPTJ. The effects of lateral front fork flexibility on the vibrational modes of straight-running single-track vehicles. Veh Syst Dyn1981; 10(1): 21–35.
6.
HikichiTTakagiK. Promise of new technology in the automotive industry, vol 1: technical papers. In: Proceedings of the 23rd FISITA congress, 1990, Torino, Italy, 7–11 May 1990, p. 235. Society of Automotive Engineers.
ShahabpoorEPavicA. Human-structure dynamic interactions: identification of two-degrees-of-freedom walking human model. J Sound Vib2024; 569: 117974.
9.
BullimoreSRBurnJF. Ability of the planar spring-mass model to predict mechanical parameters in running humans. J Theor Biol2007; 248(4): 686–695.
10.
TroyKLTetreaultKGoodworthAD, et al. Chapter 16: biomechanics and biomechatronics in sports, exercise, and entertainment. In: PopovićMB (ed.) Biomechatronics. Academic Press, 2025, pp.503–547, 2nd ed.
11.
LindenmannAUhlMGwoschT, et al. The influence of human interaction on the vibration of hand-held human-machine systems - the effect of body posture, feed force, and gripping forces on the vibration of hammer drills. Appl Ergon2021; 95: 103430.
12.
WhiteREMacdonaldJHGAlexanderNA. A nonlinear frequency-dependent spring-mass model for estimating loading caused by rhythmic human jumping. Eng Struct2021; 241: 112229.
13.
CarrollSPOwenJSHusseinMFM. Experimental identification of the lateral human–structure interaction mechanism and assessment of the inverted-pendulum biomechanical model. J Sound Vib2014; 333(22): 5865–5884.
14.
HofALGazendamMGSinkeWE. The condition for dynamic stability. J Biomech2005; 38(1): 1–8.
15.
JennyDFJennyP. On the mechanical power output required for human running - insight from an analytical model. J Biomech2020; 110: 109948.
16.
NagyPVDesaSWhittakerWL. Energy-based stability measures for reliable locomotion of statically stable walkers. Theory and application. Int J Rob Res1994; 13(3): 272–287.
17.
DudaGNSchneiderEChaoEY. Internal forces and moments in the femur during walking. J Biomech1997; 30(9): 933–941.
18.
SharpRS. Stability, control and steering responses of motorcycles. Veh Syst Dyn2001; 35(4–5): 291–318.
19.
CossalterVLotRMassaroM. The influence of frame compliance and rider mobility on the scooter stability. Veh Syst Dyn2007; 45(4): 313–326.
20.
NishimiTKatayamaTAokiA, et al. Measurements of structural properties of riders. Proc., 4th International Pacific Conference on Automative Engineering, Melbourne, Australia, 1987.
21.
MassaroMLotRCossalterV, et al. Numerical and experimental investigation of passive rider effects on motorcycle weave. Veh Syst Dyn2012; 50: 215–227.
22.
SharpRSEvangelouSLimebeerDJN. Advances in the modelling of motorcycle dynamics. Multibody Syst Dyn2004; 12: 251–283.
23.
EvangelouSLimebeerDJNTomas RodriguezM. Influence of road camber on motorcycle stability. J Appl Mech2008; 75: 08.
24.
PacejkaHB. Chapter 11: motorcycle dynamics. In: PacejkaHB (ed.) Tyre and vehicle dynamics. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2006, pp.517–585, 2nd ed.
25.
CossalterVDoriaALotR, et al. The effect of rider’s passive steering impedance on motorcycle stability: identification and analysis. Meccanica2011; 46: 279–292.
26.
SharpRSLimebeerDJN. On steering wobble oscillations of motorcycles. Proc Inst Mech Eng C J Mech Eng Sci2004; 218(12): 1449–1456.
27.
CossalterVDoriaALotR, et al. A motorcycle riding simulator for assessing the riding ability and for testing rider assistance systems. Proc., 9th Driving Simulation Conference, 2006.
28.
CossalterVDoriaALotR, et al. A motorcycle riding simulator for the improvement of the rider safety. FISITA World Automotive Congress, 2008.
29.
CossalterVDoriaAGarbinS, et al. Frequency-domain method for evaluating the ride comfort of a motorcycle. Veh Syst Dyn2006; 44(4): 339–355.
30.
DewanganKNYaoYRakhejaS. Seat-to-head transmissibility responses of seated human body coupled with visco-elastic seats. Vibrations2022; 5(4): 860–882.
31.
LiangCCChiangCF. A study on biodynamic models of seated human subjects exposed to vertical vibration. Int J Ind Ergon2006; 36(10): 869–890.
32.
CoermannRR. The mechanical impedance of the human body in sitting and standing position at low frequencies. Hum Factors1962; 4(5): 227–253.
33.
DesaiRGuhaASeshuP. Multibody biomechanical modelling of human body response to direct and cross axis vibration. Procedia Comput Sci2018; 133: 494–501.
34.
WeiLGriffinJ. The prediction of seat transmissibility from measures of seat impedance. J Sound Vib1998; 214(1): 121–137.
35.
WeiLGriffinMJ. Mathematical models for the apparent mass of the seated human body exposed to vertical vibration. J Sound Vib1998; 212(5): 855–874.
36.
NdimilaBWEliasENalitolelaNG, et al. Investigation of motorcycle design improvements with respect to whole body vibration exposure to the rider. J Multidiscip Eng Sci Technol2015.
37.
ParvezMKhanA. Prediction of ride comfort of two-wheeler riders exposed to whole-body vibration. Adv Eng Des2019; 563–571.
38.
DongRZhuSChengX, et al. Study on the biodynamic characteristics and internal vibration behaviors of a seated human body under biomechanical characteristics. Biomech Model Mechanobiol2024; 23: 1449–1468.
39.
DongRCHeLDuW, et al. Effect of sitting posture and seat on biodynamic responses of internal human body simulated by finite element modeling of body-seat system. J Sound Vib2019; 438: 543–554.
40.
YangXYanLShenY, et al. Dynamic performance analysis and parameters perturbation study of inerter–spring–damper suspension for heavy vehicle. J Low Freq Noise Vib Active Control2021; 40(3): 1335–1350.
41.
TrzesniowskiM. Springs and dampers. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2023. pp.163–238.
42.
KashishEReddyVSivalingamM, et al. Analysis of whole-body vibration of a two-wheeler rider. SAE papers 2019-01-0406, 2019, pp. 1–16.
43.
LawhernVHairstonWDRobbinsK. Detect: a MATLAB toolbox for event detection and identification in time series, with applications to artifact detection in EEG signals. PLoS One2013; 8: e62944.
44.
PradhanSSamantarayAK. Integrated modeling and simulation of vehicle and human multi-body dynamics for comfort assessment in railway vehicles. J Mech Sci Technol2018; 32: 109–119.
45.
KimTHKimYTYoonYS. Development of a biomechanical model of the human body in a sitting posture with vibration transmissibility in the vertical direction. Int J Ind Ergon2005; 35(9): 817–829.
46.
PassigatoFSchrammADiermeyerF, et al. Identification of lumped stiffness parameters for a motorcycle model in investigating weave and wobble. Multibody Syst Dyn2024; 60(2): 233–255.
47.
TowardMGRGriffinMJ. Apparent mass of the human body in the vertical direction: inter-subject variability. J Sound Vib2011; 330(4): 827–841.
48.
MansfieldNJ. Impedance methods (apparent mass, driving point mechanical impedance and absorbed power) for assessment of the biomechanical response of the seated person to whole-body vibration. Ind Health2005; 43(3): 378–389.
49.
YangXZhangTLiY, et al. A review on the application of inerters in vehicle suspension systems. Machines2025; 13(9): 779.
50.
RajalinghamCRakhejaS. Influence of suspension damper asymmetry on vehicle vibration response to ground excitation. J Sound Vib2003; 266(5): 1117–1129.
51.
NguyenTLechnerBWongYD, et al. Bus ride index – a refined approach to evaluating road surface irregularities. Road Mater Pavement Des2021; 22: 423–443.
