Search

Abstract: Although the discomfort or injury associated with whole-body vibration cannot be predicted directly from the power absorbed during exposure to vibration, the absorbed power may contribute to understanding of the biodynamics involved in such responses. From measurements of force and acceleration at the seat, the feet, and the backrest, the power absorbed at these three locations was calculated for subjects sitting in four postures (feet hanging, maximum thigh contact, average thigh contact, and minimum thigh contact) both with and without a rigid vertical backrest while exposed to four magnitudes (0.125, 0.25, 0.625, and 1.25ms−2 rms) of random fore-and-aft vibration. The power absorbed by the body at the supporting seat surface when there was no backrest showed a peak around 1Hz and another peak between 3 and 4Hz. Supporting the back with the backrest decreased the power absorbed at the seat at low frequencies but increased the power absorbed at high frequencies. Foot support influenced both the magnitude and the frequency of the peaks in the absorbed power spectra as well as the total absorbed power. The measurements of absorbed power are consistent with backrests being beneficial during exposure to low frequency fore-and-aft vibration but detrimental with high frequency fore-and-aft vibration. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The vibration of backrests contributes to the discomfort of drivers and passengers. A frequency weighting exists for evaluating the vibration of vertical backrests but not for reclined backrests often used during travel. This experimental study was designed to determine how backrest inclination and the frequency of vibration influence perception thresholds and vibration discomfort when the vibration is applied normal to the back (i.e. fore-and-aft vibration when seated upright and vertical vibration when fully reclined). Twelve subjects experienced the vibration of a backrest (at each of the 11 preferred one-third octave centre frequencies in the range 2.5–25Hz) at vibration magnitudes from the threshold of perception to 24dB above threshold. Initially, absolute thresholds for the perception of vibration were determined with four backrest inclinations: 0° (upright), 30°, 60° and 90° (recumbent). The method of magnitude estimation was then used to obtain judgements of vibration discomfort with each of the four backrest angles. Finally, the relative discomfort between the four backrest angles, and the principal locations for feeling vibration discomfort in the body, were determined. With all backrest inclinations, absolute thresholds for the perception of vibration acceleration were dependent on the frequency of vibration. As the backrest inclination became more horizontal, the thresholds increased at frequencies between 4 and 8Hz. For all backrest inclinations, the rate of growth of discomfort with increasing magnitude of vibration was independent of the frequency of vibration, so the frequency-dependence of discomfort was similar over the range of magnitudes investigated (0.04–0.6ms−2 rms). With an upright backrest, the discomfort caused by vibration acceleration tended to be greatest at frequencies less than about 8Hz. With inclined backrests (at 30°, 60°, and 90°), the equivalent comfort contours were broadly similar to each other, with greatest discomfort caused by acceleration around 10 or 12.5Hz. At frequencies from 4 to 8Hz, 30–40 percent greater magnitudes of vibration were required with the three inclined backrests to cause discomfort equivalent to that caused by the upright backrest. It is concluded that with an upright backrest the frequency weighting W c used in current standards is appropriate for predicting the discomfort caused by fore-and-aft backrest vibration. With inclined and horizontal backrests, a weighting similar to frequency weighting W b (used to predict discomfort caused by vertical seat vibration) appears more appropriate. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: To minimise the discomfort of standing people caused by vibration of a floor, it is necessary to know how their sensitivity to vibration depends on the frequency of the vibration. This study was designed to determine how the discomfort of standing people exposed to horizontal and vertical vibration depends on vibration frequency over the range 0.5–16Hz. Using the method of magnitude estimation, sixteen subjects judged the discomfort caused by fore-and-aft, lateral, and vertical sinusoidal vibration at each of the sixteen preferred one-third octave centre frequencies from 0.5 to 16Hz at each of nine magnitudes. Subjects also reported the main cause of their discomfort. Equivalent comfort contours were constructed, reflecting the effect of frequency on subject sensitivity to vibration acceleration. With horizontal vibration, at frequencies between 0.5 and 3.15Hz the discomfort was similar when the vibration velocity was similar, whereas at frequencies between 3.15 and 16Hz the discomfort was similar when the vibration acceleration was similar. At frequencies less than 3.15Hz, the subjects experienced problems with their stability, whereas at higher frequencies vibration discomfort was mostly experienced from sensations in the legs and feet. With vertical vibration, discomfort was felt in the lower-body and upper-body at all frequencies. The frequency weightings in current standards for predicting the vibration discomfort of standing persons have been greatly influenced by the findings of studies with seated subjects: the weightings are consistent with the experimentally determined frequency-dependence of discomfort caused by vertical vibration but inconsistent with the experimentally determined frequency-dependence of discomfort caused by horizontal vibration. The results suggest that the responses of seated and standing people are similar for vertical vibration, but differ for horizontal vibration, partly due to greater instability in standing persons. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Previous studies have quantified the power absorbed in the seated human body during exposure to vibration but have not investigated the effects of body posture or the power absorbed at the back and the feet. This study investigated the effects of support for the feet and back and the magnitude of vibration on the power absorbed during whole-body vertical vibration. Twelve subjects were exposed to four magnitudes (0.125, 0.25, 0.625, and 1.25ms−2 rms) of random vertical vibration (0.25–20Hz) while sitting on a rigid seat in four postures (feet hanging, maximum thigh contact, average thigh contact, and minimum thigh contact) both with and without a rigid vertical backrest. Force and acceleration were measured at the seat, the feet, and the backrest to calculate the power absorbed at these three locations. At all three interfaces (seat, feet, and back) the absorbed power increased in proportion to the square of the magnitude of vibration, with most power absorbed from vibration at the seat. Supporting the back with the backrest decreased the power absorbed at the seat at low frequencies but increased the power absorbed at high frequencies. Supporting the feet with the footrest reduced the total absorbed power at the seat, with greater reductions with higher footrests. It is concluded that contact between the thighs and the seat increases the power absorbed at the seat whereas a backrest can either increase or decrease the power absorbed at the seat. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Low frequency pitch and fore-and-aft oscillations arise in many modes of transport. Pitch oscillation rotates a seat through the gravity vector giving rise to a fore-and-aft acceleration in the plane of the seat: the measurement of fore-and-aft acceleration does not discriminate between the component of this acceleration arising from pitch and the component arising from horizontal acceleration in the fore-and-aft direction. The objectives of this study were to investigate whether fore-and-aft acceleration in the plane of the seat was an adequate predictor of vibration discomfort arising from low frequency oscillation in both the pitch and fore-and-aft axes, and to determine the effect of a backrest on discomfort during pitch and fore-and-aft oscillation at low frequencies. Twelve male subjects used the method of magnitude estimation to judge the discomfort produced by sinusoidal oscillations in the pitch and fore-and-aft axes at 10 frequencies between 0.2 and 1.6Hz, while seated with and without a backrest. For both pitch and fore-and-aft oscillation, the rate of growth of discomfort with increasing vibration magnitude decreased with increasing frequency of oscillation, indicating that the frequency-dependence of discomfort is magnitude-dependent. At frequencies greater than about 0.4Hz with a backrest, and at frequencies greater than about 0.8Hz without a backrest, fore-and-aft acceleration in the plane of the seat arising from pitch oscillation caused greater discomfort than the same acceleration produced by fore-and-aft oscillation. A backrest increased discomfort with pitch oscillation at frequencies greater than about 0.63Hz, but tended to decrease discomfort during fore-and-aft oscillation. The prediction of discomfort caused by low frequency pitch and fore-and-aft oscillation requires that both components are measured and assessed according to their separate effects, taking into account any beneficial and detrimental effects of a backrest. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]