In this study, a 3D asymmetric lifting motion is predicted by using a hybrid predictive model to prevent potential musculoskeletal lower back injuries for asymmetric lifting tasks. The hybrid model has two modules: a skeletal module and an OpenSim musculoskeletal module. The skeletal module consists of a dynamic joint strength based 40 degrees of freedom spatial skeletal model. The skeletal module can predict the lifting motion, ground reaction forces (GRFs), and center of pressure (COP) trajectory using an inverse dynamics-based motion optimization method. The musculoskeletal module consists of a 324-muscle-actuated full-body lumbar spine model. Based on the predicted kinematics, GRFs and COP data from the skeletal module, the musculoskeletal module estimates muscle activations using static optimization and joint reaction forces through the joint reaction analysis tool in OpenSim. The predicted asymmetric motion and GRFs are validated with experimental data. Muscle activation results between the simulated and experimental EMG are also compared to validate the model. Finally, the shear and compression spine loads are compared to NIOSH recommended limits. The differences between asymmetric and symmetric liftings are also compared.
FreburgerJKHolmesGMAgansRP, et al. The rising prevalence of chronic low back pain. Arch Intern Med2009; 169(3): 251–258.
2.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer reported workplace injuries and illness. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, 2018.
3.
MurrayCJLopezAD; World Health Organization. The global burden of disease: a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries, and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020: summary. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1996.
4.
BergmannGBenderAGraichenF, et al. Standardized loads acting in knee implants. PLoS One2014; 9(1): e86035.
5.
WilkeHNeefPHinzB, et al. Intradiscal pressure together with anthropometric data–a data set for the validation of models. Clin Biomech2001; 16S: S111–S126.
6.
ZamanRArefeenAQuarnstromJ, et al. Optimization-based biomechanical lifting models for manual material handling: A comprehensive review. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2022; 236(9): 1273–1287.
7.
ZamanRXiangYCruzJ, et al. Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional symmetric lifting motion prediction models: A case study. J Comput Inf Sci Eng2021; 21(4): 044501.
8.
HuangCShethPNGranataKP. Multibody dynamics integrated with muscle models and space-time constraints for optimization of lifting movements. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2005 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference. Volume 6: 5th international conference on multibody systems, nonlinear dynamics, and control, parts A, B, and C, Long Beach, CA, 24–28 September 2005. ASME.
9.
HsiangSMAyoubMM. Development of methodology in biomechanical simulation of manual lifting. Int J Ind Ergon1994; 13(4): 271–288.
10.
XiangYAroraJSRahmatallaS, et al. Human lifting simulation using a multi-objective optimization approach. Multibody Syst Dyn2010; 23(4): 431–451.
11.
XiangYCruzJZamanR, et al. Multi-objective optimization for two-dimensional maximum weight lifting prediction considering dynamic strength. Eng Optim2021; 53(2): 206–220.
12.
XiangYZamanRRakshitR, et al. Subject-specific strength percentile determination for two-dimensional symmetric lifting considering dynamic joint strength. Multibody Syst Dyn2019; 46(1): 63–76.
13.
XiangYArefeenA. Two-dimensional team lifting prediction with floating-base box dynamics and grasping force coupling. Multibody Syst Dyn2020; 50(2): 211–231.
14.
WangQXiangYKimHJ, et al. Alternative formulations for optimization-based digital human motion prediction. In: 2005 SAE digital human modeling conference, Iowa City, IA, 14–16June2005.
GeijtenbeekT. SCONE: Open source software for predictive simulation of biological motion. J Open Source Softw2019; 4(38): 1421.
17.
TangYMaLLiuW, et al. Long-term human motion prediction by modeling motion context and enhancing motion dynamic. Proceedings of the twenty-seventh international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Stockholm, Sweden, 13–19July2018.
18.
YeZWuHJiaJ. Human motion modeling with deep learning: A survey. AI Open2022; 3: 35–39.
19.
MarchellusMParkIK. Deep learning for 3D human motion prediction: state-of-the-art and future trends. IEEE Access2022; 10: 35919–35931.
20.
ChangCCBrownDRBloswickDS, et al. Biomechanical simulation of manual lifting using spacetime optimization. J Biomech2001; 34(4): 527–532.
21.
LinCJAyoubMMBernardTM. Computer motion simulation for sagittal plane lifting activities. Int J Ind Ergon1999; 24(2): 141–155.
22.
MaLZhangWChablatD, et al. Multi-objective optimisation method for posture prediction and analysis with consideration of fatigue effect and its application case. Comput Ind Eng2009; 57(4): 1235–1246.
23.
GhiasiMSArjmandNBoroushakiM, et al. Investigation of trunk muscle activities during lifting using a multi-objective optimization-based model and intelligent optimization algorithms. Med Biol Eng Comput2016; 54(2-3): 431–440.
24.
GündogduÖAndersonKSParnianpourM. Simulation of manual materials handling: biomechanial assessment under different lifting conditions. Technol Health Care2005; 13(1): 57–66.
25.
OngCFHicksJLDelpSL. Simulation-based design for wearable robotic systems: an optimization framework for enhancing a standing long jump. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2016; 63(5): 894–903.
26.
OstraichBRiemerR. Simulation of a passive knee exoskeleton for vertical jump using optimal control. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2020; 28(12): 2859–2868.
RollerMBjörkenstamSLinnJ, et al. Optimal control of a biomechanical multibody model for the dynamic simulation of working tasks. In: The 8th ECCOMAS thematic conference on multibody dynamics, Prague, Czech Republic, 19–22June2017.
29.
RakshitRXiangYYangJ. Dynamic-joint-strength-based two-dimensional symmetric maximum weight-lifting simulation: model development and validation. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2020; 234(7): 660–673.
30.
SongJQuXChenC-H. Simulation of lifting motions using a novel multi-objective optimization approach. Int J Ind Ergon2016; 53: 37–47.
31.
SreenivasaMMillardMKingmaI, et al. Predicting the influence of hip and lumbar flexibility on lifting motions using optimal control. J Biomech2018; 78: 118–125.
32.
WatersTRGargA. Two-dimensional biomechanical model for estimating strength of youth and adolescents for manual material handling tasks. Appl Ergon2010; 41(1): 1–7.
33.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control. NIOSH Technical report, Work practices guide for manual lifting. Cincinnati, OH: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, 1981.
34.
WatersTRPutz-AndersonVGargA, et al. Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics1993; 36(7): 749–776.
35.
ChaffinDBAnderssonGBMartinBJ. Occupational biomechanics. Hoboken, NJ: John wiley & sons inc, 2006.
36.
University of Michigan Center for Ergonomics. 3D Static Strength Prediction Program user’s manual version 7.0.1. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Technology Management Office, 2017.
37.
BlanchonetteP. Jack human modelling tool: A review. Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Australian Department of Defense, DSTO-TR-2364 report, 2010.
38.
Abdel-MalekKAroraJLawLF, et al. Santos: a digital human in the making. In: The 50th annual meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, San Francisco, CA, 16–20October2006.
39.
XiangYAroraJSAbdel-MalekK. Hybrid predictive dynamics: a new approach to simulate human motion. Multibody Syst Dyn2012; 28(3): 199–224.
40.
AndersonDEMadiganMLNussbaumMA. Maximum voluntary joint torque as a function of joint angle and angular velocity: model development and application to the lower limb. J Biomech2007; 40(14): 3105–3113.
41.
AzghaniMRFarahmandFMeghdariA, et al. Design and evaluation of a novel triaxial isometric trunk muscle strength measurement system. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2009; 223(6): 755–766.
42.
Frey-LawLALaakeAAvinKG, et al. Knee and elbow 3D strength surfaces: peak torque-angle-velocity relationships. J Appl Biomech2012; 28(6): 726–737.
43.
HussainSJFrey-LawL. 3D strength surfaces for ankle plantar- and dorsi-flexion in healthy adults: an isometric and isokinetic dynamometry study. J Foot Ankle Res2016; 9(43): 43.
44.
LooftJM. Adaptation and validation of an analytical localized muscle fatigue model for workplace tasks. PhD dissertation, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 2014.
45.
ZamanRXiangYCruzJ, et al. Three-dimensional symmetric maximum weight lifting prediction. In: Proceedings of ASME 2020 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Volume 9: 40th Computers and information in engineering conference (CIE), 16–19August2020, online.
46.
ZamanRXiangYCruzJ, et al. Three-dimensional asymmetric maximum weight lifting prediction considering dynamic joint strength. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2021; 235(4): 437–446.
47.
Beaucage-GauvreauERobertsonWSPBrandonSCE, et al. Validation of an OpenSim full-body model with detailed lumbar spine for estimating lower lumbar spine loads during symmetric and asymmetric lifting tasks. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2019; 22(5): 451–464.
48.
KimHKZhangY. Estimation of lumbar spinal loading and trunk muscle forces during asymmetric lifting tasks: application of whole-body musculoskeletal modelling in OpenSim. Ergonomics2017; 60(4): 563–576.
49.
ZamanRXiangYRakshitR, et al. Hybrid predictive model for lifting by integrating skeletal motion prediction with an OpenSim musculoskeletal model. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2022; 69(3): 1111–1122.
50.
XiangYAroraJSRahmatallaS, et al. Optimization-based dynamic human walking prediction: One step formulation. Int J Numer Methods Eng2009; 79(6): 667–695.
51.
GillPEMurrayWSaundersMA. SNOPT: an SQP algorithm for large-scale constrained optimization. SIAM Rev2005; 47(1): 99–131.
52.
RaabeMEChaudhariAMW. An investigation of jogging biomechanics using the full-body lumbar spine model: model development and validation. J Biomech2016; 49(7): 1238–1243.
53.
HalakiMGinnK. Normalization of EMG signals: to normalize or not to normalize and what to normalize to. In: NaikGanesh R. (ed) Computational intelligence in electromyography analysis-A perspective on current applications and future challenges. London: IntechOpen, 2012; 175–194.
54.
HanKSRohlmannAZanderT, et al. Lumbar spinal loads vary with body height and weight. Med Eng Phys2013; 35(7): 969–977.
55.
KoelewijnADVan Den BogertAJ. Antagonistic co-contraction can minimize muscular effort in systems with uncertainty. PeerJ2022; 10: e13085.
