## 2 Experimental Study of a Human Mass-Spring-Damping Model
### Identification of Pedestrian Dynamics Model Parameters
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Subject** & \(f_{s}^{\prime}\)**(Hz)** & \(\zeta_{s}^{\prime}\) & \(f_{H}\) **(Hz)** & \(\xi_{H}\) & **Subject** & \(f_{s}^{\prime}\) **(Hz)** & \(\zeta_{s}^{\prime}\) & \(f_{H}\) **(Hz)** & \(\xi_{H}\) \\ \hline M01 & 4.115 & 1.13\% & 1.9313 & 35.52\% & M11 & 4.116 & 1.11\% & 1.8645 & 30.55\% \\ M02 & 4.116 & 1.17\% & 2.0466 & 32.89\% & M12 & 4.116 & 1.17\% & 1.9824 & 33.01\% \\ M03 & 4.118 & 1.17\% & 2.2542 & 27.28\% & M13 & 4.117 & 1.22\% & 2.2712 & 28.44\% \\ M04 & 4.116 & 1.19\% & 2.2021 & 33.04\% & M14 & 4.115 & 1.17\% & 1.8974 & 36.63\% \\ M05 & 4.119 & 1.24\% & 2.2760 & 25.89\% & M15 & 4.116 & 1.20\% & 2.1856 & 33.49\% \\ M06 & 4.116 & 1.20\% & 2.2008 & 33.37\% & M16 & 4.118 & 1.16\% & 2.2573 & 26.55\% \\ M07 & 4.118 & 1.19\% & 2.2579 & 23.02\% & M17 & 4.115 & 1.18\% & 2.0974 & 36.14\% \\ M08 & 4.117 & 1.09\% & 1.9269 & 25.97\% & M18 & 4.115 & 1.20\% & 2.0425 & 36.76\% \\ M09 & 4.114 & 1.21\% & 2.0182 & 39.94\% & M19 & 4.116 & 1.21\% & 2.2884 & 32.81\% \\ M10 & 4.118 & 1.14\% & 1.9413 & 26.14\% & M20 & 4.118 & 1.12\% & 2.0968 & 25.17\% \\ W01 & 4.115 & 1.10\% & 2.1030 & 33.84\% & W04 & 4.116 & 1.07\% & 2.0548 & 28.51\% \\ W02 & 4.116 & 1.10\% & 2.0118 & 30.17\% & W05 & 4.114 & 1.20\% & 2.2478 & 28.43\% \\ W03 & 4.116 & 1.15\% & 2.3042 & 24.91\% & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{Mean values of Group 1} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\(f_{H}\): 2.0714 Hz} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\(\xi_{H}\): 32.02\%} \\ \multicolumn{10}{c}{Mean values of Group 2} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\(f_{H}\): 2.1601 Hz} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\(\xi_{H}\): 29.10\%} \\ \multicolumn{10}{c}{Mean of all subjects} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\(f_{H}\): 2.1104 Hz} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\(\xi_{H}\): 30.74\%} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Identification of human parameters in 1.9 Hz walking conditions. that of Group 2, while the damping ratio of Group 1 is greater than that of Group 2. Meanwhile, it can be noticed that, with the increase of the stride frequency, the mode frequency of the pedestrian shows a decreasing trend. This trend is consistent with the physical mechanism of the pedestrian walking procedure. When a pedestrian walks at a lower frequency, the contact time between the pedestrian and the structure per step is longer than that at a higher frequency, and the stiffness of the pedestrian during walking is mainly attributed to the stiffness of the supporting leg, so the mode frequency of the pedestrian at a lower frequency is greater than that at a higher frequency. The damping ratio increases as the walking frequency of the pedestrian increases. The results of MSD model parameter identification for all tests for each walking condition are plotted in Figures 13-16. As shown in Figure 13a, when the stride frequency is 1.5 Hz, there is a significant negative correlation between the body frequency of the pedestrian in the high stature group (Group 1) and his mass. That is, with the increasing weight of a subject in Group 1, the frequency of his body is decreasing. Nevertheless, there is no significant tendency for the body damping ratio to change as the weight of the pedestrian in the high stature group increases. This indicates that the average damping ratio of the high stature group can be taken for the vibration serviceability evaluation of large-span floor slabs with the consideration of pedestrian-structure coupling effects. Similar to the results in Figure 13a, there is a significant negative correlation between the body frequency of pedestrians in the short stature group (Group 2) and their body mass in Figure 13b. It is worth noting that there is no significant correlation between the body damping ratio of pedestrians in the short stature group and their body weight in Figure 13b; the correlation characteristics are consistent with those presented in Figures 14b-16b.