Limits of Application of Human Body Dynamics in Assessing Vibration Comfort of Seats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="htmlview paragraph">It has been widely reported that the overall vibration comfort performance of static and dynamics seats is strongly influenced by the biodynamic behaviour of the seated human body. The contributions of the seated occupant to the overall vibration attenuation of the coupled seat-occupant system are experimentally investigated as functions of the nature of excitation, static and dynamic properties of the seat, and the sitting posture. The study involved two different seats with natural frequencies in the vicinity of 1.5 Hz and 4 Hz, which would characterize the low natural frequency suspension as well as high natural frequency seats employed in automobiles and some industrial vehicles. The vibration isolation properties of the seats are evaluated with a rigid mass and two human subjects under different vibration excitations, including swept sine, broad-band random and standardized vibration spectra of selected vehicles. The data acquired for the seat-occupant system are compared with those for the seat-mass system to identify the limits of applicability of the human body dynamics in assessing the vibration comfort performance of seats. It is concluded that the role of human body dynamics is relatively small in case of low natural frequency suspension seats, when subjected to either low frequency excitations such as those encountered in urban buses or high frequency excitations, such as those of the forklift trucks. The human body dynamics are also insignificant for high natural frequency seats subjected to low frequency excitations. The contributions due to human body dynamics are most significant for high natural frequency seats exposed to excitations near the natural frequencies of the seated occupant and the seat.</div>
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".