4.4 Article

Assessment of helicopter passengers' vibration discomfort: proposal for improvement of the ISO 2631-1 standard

期刊

ERGONOMICS
卷 65, 期 2, 页码 296-304

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2021.1984586

关键词

Vibrations; perception; helicopters; metric

资金

  1. Association Nationale Recherche Technologie (ANRT)
  2. LABEX CeLyA of Universite deLyon [ANR-10-LABX-0060]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study confirmed the validity of the ISO 2631-1 standard in assessing discomfort caused by vibrations in helicopters and proposed a new discomfort index that takes into account amplitude modulations, which can improve the prediction of subjective assessments.
High levels of vibration exist in helicopters and manufacturers are seeking to quantify vibration discomfort. They use the ISO 2631-1 standard, proposed for all types of transport. This study aimed to verify the validity of this index in the specific case of helicopters. Perception tests were carried out in the laboratory. Volunteers assessed the discomfort of vibratory stimuli on test benches generating vertical and triaxial vibrations. Foot, seat, and backrest accelerations were measured for each participant according to each stimulus. The ISO 2631-1 comfort indices were then compared with the evaluations given by the participants. The results showed that the standard provided a good estimate of discomfort. However, it lacks precision in estimating the discomfort of stimuli which include amplitude modulations, as can happen in helicopters. A new discomfort index is proposed based on ISO 2631-1 and allows better prediction of subjective assessments. Practitioner Summary: An improved index based on ISO 2631-1 standard is proposed to estimate helicopter vibratory discomfort for seated passengers. It takes into account the amplitude modulations that can appear at low frequencies in helicopters. This modification allowed a significant improvement of the accuracy of ISO 2631-1 for such stimuli.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据