Objectification Methods for Ride Comfort – Comparison of Conventional Methods and Proposal of a new Method for Automated Driving Conditions

E. Enders, F. Fent, M. Lienkamp, G. Burkhard, D. Schramm
{"title":"Objectification Methods for Ride Comfort – Comparison of Conventional Methods and Proposal of a new Method for Automated Driving Conditions","authors":"E. Enders, F. Fent, M. Lienkamp, G. Burkhard, D. Schramm","doi":"10.51202/9783181023495-323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For efficient suspension development, objective performance indicators are needed which quantify the system with regard to ride comfort. This paper aims to investigate the capabilities of objectification methods from literature and presents a new method for automated and autonomous driving situations. Two studies were conducted in order to investigate objectification methods for ride comfort. In the first study, different objectification methods from literature were tested and compared. Sixteen subjects drove on a country road with a BMW 650i (F06). The subjects had to rate different damper settings which were tested at the same road section. The sensor data was evaluated according to ISO-2631:1997 (equal to VDI-2057:2017), BS 6841:1987, as well as according to the methods of Rericha, Cucuz, Klingner and Hennecke. As subjective ratings imply ordinally scaled data sets, the correlation between the objective values and the subjective ratings is tested with the rank-correlation coefficient Kendalls-Tau and exploratory statistical methods. In the second study, forty participants drove and were driven around country roads in a BMW 135i (F20). The inattentive occupants had to perform an activity on a tablet which distracted them from the current driving situation. The subjects had to rate the ride comfort on four different road sections. Measurements have been conducted with a self-developed body measurement system and a seat pad sensor according to ISO-10326. The measurements and subjective ratings were correlated and statistically analyzed. The results of the first Study show that the ISO-2631, VDI-2057 and BS 6841:1987 perform best under the given test conditions. The method of Klingner shows the best results of the non-standardized methods. The results of the second study show a significant difference in comfort perception between attentive and inattentive occupants. It can also be seen that inattentive occupants show higher values of RMS accelerations measured at the head, which is also visible in the vehicle to head transmissibility","PeriodicalId":238858,"journal":{"name":"Autoreg 2019","volume":"60 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Autoreg 2019","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51202/9783181023495-323","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

For efficient suspension development, objective performance indicators are needed which quantify the system with regard to ride comfort. This paper aims to investigate the capabilities of objectification methods from literature and presents a new method for automated and autonomous driving situations. Two studies were conducted in order to investigate objectification methods for ride comfort. In the first study, different objectification methods from literature were tested and compared. Sixteen subjects drove on a country road with a BMW 650i (F06). The subjects had to rate different damper settings which were tested at the same road section. The sensor data was evaluated according to ISO-2631:1997 (equal to VDI-2057:2017), BS 6841:1987, as well as according to the methods of Rericha, Cucuz, Klingner and Hennecke. As subjective ratings imply ordinally scaled data sets, the correlation between the objective values and the subjective ratings is tested with the rank-correlation coefficient Kendalls-Tau and exploratory statistical methods. In the second study, forty participants drove and were driven around country roads in a BMW 135i (F20). The inattentive occupants had to perform an activity on a tablet which distracted them from the current driving situation. The subjects had to rate the ride comfort on four different road sections. Measurements have been conducted with a self-developed body measurement system and a seat pad sensor according to ISO-10326. The measurements and subjective ratings were correlated and statistically analyzed. The results of the first Study show that the ISO-2631, VDI-2057 and BS 6841:1987 perform best under the given test conditions. The method of Klingner shows the best results of the non-standardized methods. The results of the second study show a significant difference in comfort perception between attentive and inattentive occupants. It can also be seen that inattentive occupants show higher values of RMS accelerations measured at the head, which is also visible in the vehicle to head transmissibility
乘坐舒适性的客观化方法——传统方法的比较和自动驾驶条件下新方法的提出
为了有效地开发悬架,需要客观的性能指标来量化系统的乘坐舒适性。本文旨在从文献中研究客观化方法的能力,并提出一种用于自动驾驶和自动驾驶情况的新方法。本文进行了两项研究,以探讨客体化方法对乘坐舒适性的影响。在第一项研究中,对文献中不同的客观化方法进行了检验和比较。16名受试者驾驶一辆宝马650i (F06)在乡间公路上行驶。受试者必须评价在同一路段测试的不同阻尼器设置。传感器数据根据ISO-2631:1997(等于VDI-2057:2017), BS 6841:1987以及根据reicha, Cucuz, Klingner和Hennecke的方法进行评估。由于主观评分隐含着有序尺度的数据集,我们使用秩相关系数kendall - tau和探索性统计方法来检验客观值与主观评分之间的相关性。在第二项研究中,40名参与者驾驶宝马135i (F20)在乡村道路上行驶。不专心的乘客必须在平板电脑上完成一项活动,以分散他们对当前驾驶情况的注意力。受试者必须在四个不同的路段对驾驶舒适性进行评分。根据ISO-10326标准,使用自行开发的车身测量系统和座椅垫传感器进行了测量。测量结果与主观评分相关联并进行统计分析。第一项研究的结果表明,在给定的测试条件下,ISO-2631、VDI-2057和BS 6841:1987的性能最好。Klingner方法是非标准化方法中效果最好的方法。第二项研究的结果表明,注意和不注意的居住者在舒适度感知上存在显著差异。还可以看到,不注意的乘员在头部测量的RMS加速度值更高,这也可以从车辆到头部的传递性中看到
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书