Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Application of ISO 2631-1 (1997) for evaluating discomfort from whole-body vibration: verification using field and laborat...
The goal of the research <ul><li>Provide a practical method for engineers to minimize the negative effects of vibration </...
Effects of vibration exposure Health Dis-comfort Back pain Long term effects Many variables Complex cause-effect  relation...
Current knowledge
Current knowledge <ul><li>Little information on effect of time </li></ul><ul><li>Little information on the variability of ...
Evaluation of ISO 2631-1 <ul><li>Is the standard method valid? </li></ul><ul><li>What is best approach of using it? </li><...
Which axes dominate in field
Validating the standard method <ul><li>Seat translational axes are enough for prediction </li></ul><ul><li>Frequency weigh...
Improving the standard method
Simplifying the guidance on using the method <ul><li>Measure three translational axes from the seat </li></ul><ul><li>Use ...
Concluding the necessary changes and research for improving the method <ul><li>Getting rid of the options for using the ad...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Improving ISO 2631-1 for evaluating discomfort from vibration

3,983 views

Published on

Published in: Automotive, Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Improving ISO 2631-1 for evaluating discomfort from vibration

  1. 1. Application of ISO 2631-1 (1997) for evaluating discomfort from whole-body vibration: verification using field and laboratory studies Dr. Ykä Marjanen and Dr. Neil J. Mansfield Loughborough University, UK
  2. 2. The goal of the research <ul><li>Provide a practical method for engineers to minimize the negative effects of vibration </li></ul>
  3. 3. Effects of vibration exposure Health Dis-comfort Back pain Long term effects Many variables Complex cause-effect relationship More psychological Immediate feedback Less variables Simpler cause-effect relationship
  4. 4. Current knowledge
  5. 5. Current knowledge <ul><li>Little information on effect of time </li></ul><ul><li>Little information on the variability of sex and size of a person </li></ul><ul><li>Few studies on combining the axes </li></ul><ul><li>Few studies on determining best averaging method </li></ul><ul><li>One study of using all 12 axes in field </li></ul><ul><li>One study to determine correlation in field </li></ul>
  6. 6. Evaluation of ISO 2631-1 <ul><li>Is the standard method valid? </li></ul><ul><li>What is best approach of using it? </li></ul><ul><li>How well does it predict discomfort? </li></ul>
  7. 7. Which axes dominate in field
  8. 8. Validating the standard method <ul><li>Seat translational axes are enough for prediction </li></ul><ul><li>Frequency weighting works </li></ul><ul><li>R.m.s. is better than r.m.q. </li></ul><ul><li>Multiplying factors do not work well </li></ul>
  9. 9. Improving the standard method
  10. 10. Simplifying the guidance on using the method <ul><li>Measure three translational axes from the seat </li></ul><ul><li>Use the r.m.s. method to average them </li></ul><ul><li>Combine to a single value using 1.4 multiplying factors </li></ul><ul><li>Compare two or more setups in same environment </li></ul>
  11. 11. Concluding the necessary changes and research for improving the method <ul><li>Getting rid of the options for using the additional axes </li></ul><ul><li>Providing guidance on how to interpret the results </li></ul><ul><li>Providing a method to optimize multiplying factors for different environments </li></ul>

×