首页> 外文OA文献 >Predicting ride comfort with reclined seats
【2h】

Predicting ride comfort with reclined seats

机译:通过斜倚座椅预测乘坐舒适性

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Reclined seats in transport suggest luxury and comfort, but a review of the literature revealed little study of how backrest inclination influences the discomfort caused by vibration of a seat or a backrest. This thesis seeks to advance understanding of the influence of backrest inclination on vibration discomfort and provides a model for evaluating vibration discomfort and metrics for optimising seats with different backrest inclinations.Vibration discomfort depends on the direction and location of vibration input to the body. Subjects used magnitude estimation to judge vibration magnitudes from thresholds of perception up to 2 ms-2 r.m.s. at the 11 preferred 1/3-octave centre frequencies from 2.5 to 25 Hz. The first two experiments determined absolute thresholds and discomfort with x-axis backrest vibration (Experiment 1) and z-axis backrest vibration (Experiment 2) with four backrest inclinations (0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° from vertical). The third experiment investigated discomfort with vertical seat pan vibration and five backrest conditions (no backrest and backrest inclined to 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°). With x-axis vibration of the back, inclining the backrest had similar effects on thresholds and equivalent comfort contours. Thresholds increased at frequencies from 4 to 8 Hz with increasing inclination of the backrest. With inclined backrests, 40% greater magnitudes of vibration were required from 4 to 8 Hz, to cause discomfort equivalent to that with the upright backrest. Frequency weighting Wc in current standards predicted discomfort and perception of x-axis vibration of the upright backrest (0°) but weighting Wb was more appropriate for inclined backrests. Frequency weighting Wd was appropriate for both discomfort and perception of z-axis vibration of the back at all backrest inclinations. With vertical seat acceleration, the frequency of greatest sensitivity decreased with increasing vibration magnitude. Compared to an upright backrest, around the main resonance of the body the vibration magnitudes required to cause similar discomfort were 100% greater with 60° and 90° backrest inclinations and 50% greater with a 30° backrest inclination.The fourth experiment investigated whole-body vertical vibration on a rigid seat with no backrest and with four backrest inclinations. With an inclined backrest, discomfort caused by high frequency vibration increased at the head or neck but discomfort at the head or neck caused by low frequencies (5 and 6.3 Hz) reduced. With inclined backrests, the procedures in current standards overestimate overall discomfort at frequencies around 5 and 6.3 Hz but underestimate discomfort caused by frequencies greater than about 8 Hz.The final experiment investigated a model for predicting vibration discomfort with three compliant reclined seats. At each frequency, the measured seat dynamic discomfort, MSDD (the ratio of the vibration acceleration required to cause similar discomfort with a compliant seat and a rigid reference seat), was compared with seat effective amplitude transmissibility, SEAT value (the ratio of overall ride values with a compliant seat and a rigid reference seat using the weightings in current standards). The compliant seats increased vibration discomfort at frequencies around the 4-Hz resonance but reduced vibration discomfort at frequencies greater than about 6.3 Hz. The SEAT values provided appropriate indications of how the foam increased vibration discomfort at some frequencies but decreased vibration discomfort at other frequencies. Differences between the SEAT values and the measured seat dynamic discomfort are consistent with the need for different frequency weightings when the body is supported by an inclined backrest.An empirical model was evolved from the experiments for predicting vibration discomfort with reclined seats. It is concluded that reclining a backrest will tend to be detrimental at frequencies greater than about 10 Hz with greater discomfort in the head or neck induced by vibration of the backrest. At frequencies around 5 and 6.3 Hz, reclining a backrest can reduce discomfort.
机译:斜倚的座椅代表豪华和舒适,但是对文献的回顾表明,关于靠背倾斜度如何影响座椅或靠背振动所引起的不适感的研究很少。本文旨在进一步了解靠背倾斜度对振动不适的影响,并提供评估振动不适的模型和优化具有不同靠背倾斜度的座椅的度量。振动不适取决于振动输入到人体的方向和位置。受试者使用震级估算来判断从感知阈值到2 ms-2 r.m.s的振动震级。在2.5至25 Hz的11个首选的1/3倍频程中心频率上。前两个实验确定了绝对阈值和x轴靠背振动(实验1)和z轴靠背振动(实验2)在四个靠背倾斜角度(与垂直方向成0°,30°,60°和90°)下的不适感。第三个实验研究了垂直座板振动和五个靠背状况(无靠背和靠背倾斜到0°,30°,60°和90°)的不适感。靠背的x轴振动会导致靠背倾斜对阈值和等效的舒适轮廓产生类似的影响。随着靠背倾斜度的增加,阈值在从4到8 Hz的频率处增加。对于倾斜的靠背,从4到8 Hz的振动强度需要增加40%,以产生与直立靠背相同的不适感。当前标准中的频率加权Wc预测竖立靠背(0°)的不适感和x轴振动的感知,但加权Wb更适合于倾斜的靠背。频率加权Wd适用于所有靠背倾斜时的不适感和背部z轴振动的感知。随着垂直座椅加速度的增加,最大灵敏度的频率随着振动幅度的增加而降低。与直立的靠背相比,在人体的主要共振周围,引起类似不适的振动幅度在60°和90°靠背倾斜时要大100%,而在30°靠背倾斜时要大50%。在没有靠背和四个靠背倾斜度的刚性座椅上,车身垂直振动。靠背倾斜时,由高频振动引起的不适感在头或颈部增加,但由低频(5和6.3 Hz)引起的头或颈部不适感减少。对于靠背倾斜的情况,当前标准中的程序高估了5和6.3 Hz左右频率下的总体不适感,但低估了大于8 Hz的频率引起的不适感。最终实验研究了一种模型,用于预测三个顺应倾斜座椅的振动不适感。在每个频率上,将测得的座椅动态不适度MSDD(在顺应性座椅和刚性参考座椅上引起类似不适所需的振动加速度之比)与座椅有效振幅透射率SEAT值(总乘坐率之比)进行比较使用当前标准中的权重,使用顺从式座椅和刚性参考式座椅的数值)。顺应性座椅在4 Hz共振附近的频率处增加了振动不适,但在大于6.3 Hz的频率处减少了振动不适。 SEAT值提供了泡沫在某些频率下如何增加振动不适而在其他频率下如何减少振动不适的适当指示。当身体由倾斜的靠背支撑时,SEAT值与测得的座椅动态不适之间的差异与对不同频率权重的需求是一致的。从实验得出了经验模型,用于预测倾斜座椅的振动不适。结论是,靠背的倾斜在大于约10Hz的频率上将趋于有害,并且由于靠背的振动而引起的头部或颈部的更大不适感。在5和6.3 Hz左右的频率下,靠背倾斜可减少不适感。

著录项

  • 作者

    Basri B.;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2012
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 {"code":"en","name":"English","id":9}
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号