Musculoskeletal analysis of mining activities

This paper presents a framework for motion capture and musculoskeletal analysis of underground mining procedures. The framework discusses suitable motion capture solutions, musculoskeletal modelling and best practices. Preliminary analysis was conducted to assess quantitative musculoskeletal risks of rod handling and fitting with the drilling rig. The preliminary results of the analysis provide recommendations to minimise risks of potential muscular injuries.

Effects of changing from full range of motion to partial range of motion on squat kinetics

It is commonplace for people involved in recreational weight training to limit squat depth to lift heavier loads. This study compares differences in movement kinetics when squatting in the full range of motion (FROM) vs. partial range of motion (PROM). Ten men with a 1-year minimum of resistance training attended 4 sessions each comprising 4 sets of squats following one of FROM for 10 repetitions (FROM10) at an intensity of 67% 1 repetition maximum (1RM) FROM squat, PROM for 10 repetitions (PROM10) at 67% 1RM PROM squat, FROM for 5 repetitions (FROM5) at 83% FROM squat or PROM for 5 repetitions (PROM5) at 83% 1RM PROM squat. Movement velocity was not specified. Squat kinetics data were collected using an optical encoder. Differences between conditions were analyzed by repeated-measures analysis of variance and expressed as mean differences and standardized (Cohen) effect sizes with 95% confidence limits. The PROM5 power was substantially more than the PROM10 (98 W, -21 to 217; mean, lower and upper 95% confidence limits), FROM5 (168 W, 47-289), and FROM10 (255 W, 145-365). The force produced during PROM5 was substantially more than PROM10 (372 N, 254-490), FROM5 (854 N, 731-977), and FROM10 (1,069 N, 911-1227). The peak velocity produced during FROM10 was substantially more than FROM5 (0.105 m·s(-1), 0.044-0.166), PROM10 (0.246 m·s(-1), 0.167-0.325), and PROM5 (0.305 m·s(-1), 0.228-0.382). The FROM5 was substantially more than FROM10 (86 J, 59-113), PROM5 (142 J, 90-194), and PROM10 (211 J, 165-257). Therefore, either range of motion can have practical implications in designing resistance training programs depending on if the training goal is related to power and force development, maximizing work output or speed. Moderate-load PROM training, common among recreational weight trainers, is unlikely to provide higher movement kinetics.

Workspace and sensitivity analysis of a novel nonredundant parallel SCARA robot featuring infinite tool rotation

As demonstrated by the exceptionally successful Delta robot, parallel kinematics Schönflies motion generators (PKSMG) exhibit several advantages over their serial counterparts. Despite its success, the Delta robot suffers from several shortcomings, including a bulky framework and a small workspace-to-footprint ratio. Another drawback is that the kinematic chain generating tool rotation suffers from low torsional stiffness. This letter presents a novel architecture for a nonredundant PKSMG providing infinite tool rotation and an extensive positioning workspace. The workspace and kinematic performance of the proposed architecture are analysed in detail.

Analysis of compressive load on intervertebral joint in standing and sitting postures

BACKGROUND: There have been some disagreements on the comparison of disc pressures in the standing and sitting postures in literature. Most research on in vivo pressure needle measurement found higher disc pressure in sitting than in standing. The disc pressure data can help to advocate better postures for clinical advice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to develop a procedure to study the compressive load on intervertebral joint in the standing and sitting postures through the approach of motion capture and musculoskeletal modeling. METHODS: The marker data of six subjects performing various standing and sitting postures was obtained during the motion capture experiment and used to train the musculoskeletal model with an enhanced discretized spine developed for subject in the inverse and forward simulations. RESULTS: Compressive loads on L3-L4 and L4-L5 joints are found higher in upright sitting than in upright standing. Slumped sitting, cross-legged sitting and flexion sitting can introduce higher compressive loads on intervertebral joints compared with upright sitting. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate the effects of standing and sitting postures on the spinal joint loads. The results can provide doctors and therapists with more information on clinical advice on better postures for people with spinal problems.