Effects of elastic seats on seated body apparent mass responses to vertical whole body vibration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apparent mass (AM) responses of the body seated with and without a back support on three different elastic seats (flat and contoured polyurethane foam (PUF) and air cushion) and a rigid seat were measured under three levels of vertical vibration (overall rms acceleration: 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75 m/s(2)) in the 0.5 to 20 Hz range. A pressure-sensing system was used to capture biodynamic force at the occupant-seat interface. The results revealed strong effects of visco-elastic and vibration transmissibility characteristics of seats on AM. The response magnitudes with the relatively stiff air seat were generally higher than those with the PUF seats except at low frequencies. The peak magnitude decreased when sitting condition was changed from no back support to a vertical support; the reduction however was more pronounced with the air seat. Further, a relatively higher frequency shift was evident with soft seat compared with stiff elastic seat with increasing excitation. PRACTITIONER SUMMARY: The effects of visco-elastic properties of the body-seat interface on the apparent mass responses of the seated body are measured under vertical vibration. The results show considerable effects of the coupling stiffness on the seated body apparent mass, apart from those of excitation magnitude and back support.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".