Advances in Acoustics and Vibration
Volume 2016 (2016), Article ID 2676021, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/2676021

Research Article

Vibrational Comfort on Board the Vehicle: Influence of Speed Bumps and Comparison between Different Categories of Vehicle

Vincenzo Barone, Domenico Walter Edvige Mongelli, and Antonio Tassitani

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calabria, 87036 Arcavacata di Rende, Italy

Received 6 April 2016; Revised 25 May 2016; Accepted 4 August 2016

Academic Editor: Benjamin Soenarko

Copyright © 2016 Vincenzo Barone et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

This paper shows the results of a study conducted on five different categories of vehicles in a specific test site. The aim was to investigate how the effect of the test site discontinuity determines variations of comfort related to the increase in speed and to the five selected road vehicles of different classes. Measurements were obtained by combining data relating to vibrations in the three reference axes, detected through a vibration dosimeter (VIB-008), and geolocation data (latitude, longitude, and speed) identified by the GPS inside a smartphone. This procedure, through the synchronization between dosimeter and GPS location, has been helpful in postprocessing to eliminate any measurement anomalies generated by the operator. After the survey campaign it was determined that a formulation allows defining a Comfort Index (CI) depending on velocity and five vehicles of different classes. This study showed that the presence of speed bumps, in the test site investigated, appears to be uncomfortable even at speeds well below those required by the Highway Code.

1. State of Art

Vibrations provoke different responses and sensations as a function of environmental conditions and user’s physical state. Human responses to vibrations can be foreseen if they are measured and estimated in relation to the frequencies that have most influence on body reactions to stress; this requires knowledge of different parameters (e.g., frequency, orthogonal axes direction, and duration) as to define values representative of the true level of exposure [1].

Several methodologies have been introduced using differences of acceleration, acoustic pressure, and combination of these [2–8] through the use of smartphones or precision instruments, to detect abnormalities of road infrastructures. These methodologies, although using the same variables, do not identify values of comfort on board the vehicle but allow identifying discontinuities of the road paving. As described [9] a body is considered “in vibration” if it describes an oscillating movement with respect to a specific reference system.

The level of vibration is determined by the square root of the instantaneous vibration corresponding to the time history measured on the whole body. The amount determined, represented in logarithmic scale, is defined as equivalent acceleration (), whose value can be made dimensionless [9] by means of the ratio between equivalent acceleration () and a reference value of 10⁻⁶ m/s². Other studies [10] propose a methodology to measure the comfort on public transport vehicles using an index called Comfort Measuring System (CMS). The CMS (Figure 1) is comprised of three parts:

(i)measurements obtained through the detection of smartphones’ sensors;(ii)database provided by operators of the transport system;(iii)algorithm for the determination of results, using measurements from smartphones and from the database.

Figure 1: The architecture of the CMS [10].

According to ISO [11] acceptable values of vibration for the evaluation of comfort depend on many factors and specific analysis to which they are addressed. The same ISO [11] defines values to determine levels of comfort on public transport vehicles.

Values, however, depend on different variables, including the type of activity that passenger plays during the trip (reading, eating, writing, etc.) and other factors related to the environmental conditions inside the vehicles. In particular, the ISO [11] defines specific classes of comfort/discomfort:

(i)less than 0.315 m/s²: not uncomfortable;(ii)0.315 m/s² to 0.63 m/s²: a little uncomfortable;(iii)0.5 m/s² to 1 m/s²: fairly uncomfortable;(iv)0.8 m/s² to 1.6 m/s²: uncomfortable;(v)1.25 m/s² to 2.5 m/s²: very uncomfortable;(vi)greater than 2 m/s²: extremely uncomfortable.

2. Instrumentation

The instrumentation used in this work, to identify the comfort on board, is as follows:

(i)smartphone Samsung Galaxy S4 I9505 to geolocalize vehicles;(ii)vibration dosimeter VIB 008 (whole body mode) to detect, according to the European Directive [12, 13], the band limit frequency-weighted RMS acceleration in m/s² (a) and the frequency-weighted RMS acceleration, W d and W k, filter, in m/s² (), over the x-, y-, z-axis, and so forth (the main features are shown in Table 1. The analysis of data recorded by the VIB 008 has been realized with the software dB Maestro Ver.5.5, supplied by the manufacturer. This software allows analyzing and exporting data collected and stored by the instrument).

Table 1: Technical characteristics of VIB 008 vibration dosimeter (user manual VIB 008 – 01 dB).

Whole body mode

Linearity domain
70 dB

Dynamic range
0.04–120 m/s²

Frequency weightings
, , 1/1, 1/3

Broadband weighting
0.4–3700 Hz

Display resolution
0.01

Recorded magnitudes
Bandpass acceleration

Weighted acceleration

Bandpass and weighted peak and peak-to-peak acceleration

Peak factor

Equivalent acceleration

Display exposure

Mobile RMS vibration MTVV

Vibration dose VDV

Seat efficiency SEAT (option)

Configuration
Transducers

Units m/s², g

Integration time

Reference duration

Time constant

Alarm, overload counting
Yes

Calculated magnitudes
Av, , A(), A()v, VDV, Fc, MTVV
SEAT (option)
Measurement time, calculation time

Integration time
From 1 s to 60 s by steps of 1 s

Spectrum (option)

    Octave
1 Hz–2 kHz

    1/3 octave
0.8 Hz–2.5 kHz

Signal mode (option)

    Sampling frequency
256–8192 Hz

    Pretrigger
Depends on the calibration frequency
from 0 s to 16 s

    Maximum duration
—

    Posttrigger
—

Operating temperature: °C/+50°C (0–95% RH).

3. Methodology

The vehicles used to determine comfort on board are as follows:

(i)Alfa Romeo Giulietta 2.0 140 CV (sport sedan);(ii)Land Rover Freelander 2.2 160 CV (SUV);(iii)Opel Zafira Tourer 2.0 160 CV (minivan);(iv)Ford Fiesta 1.4 96 CV (compact car);(v)Opel Insignia 2.0 160 CV (sedan).

The vibration dosimeter was positioned, with appropriate orientation (Figure 2), on the driver’s seat (Figure 3), in order to determine vibrations affecting the spine while driving and caused by the presence of potholes, speed bumps, or other road abnormalities.

Figure 2: Acceleration affecting a body in a sitting position.

Figure 3: Positioning accelerometer VIB on the seat.

Parameters used to determine comfort on board are the (frequency-weighted RMS acceleration (W d and W k filters) in m/s², along the x-, y-, and z-axis), determined by the mathematical formulation (1), and , overall whole body vibration acceleration, determined by the mathematical formulation (2).

where we have the following:

(i) is the weighted acceleration (translational or rotational) as a function of time (time history), in metres per second squared (m/s²). This value is automatically measured by the instrument and it can be approximated to a continuous function (>30 Hz);(ii)T is the duration of measurement (s).

where we have the following:

(i), , and are the weighted r.m.s. acceleration with respect to the orthogonal x-, y-, and z-axis, respectively;(ii), , and are multiplying factors with respect to the orthogonal x-, y-, and z-axis, respectively. The multiplying factors values are = 1.4, = 1.4, and = 1.0 (ISO [11]).

The use of these parameters has allowed creating a link between the traveling speed and the same parameter , resulting in a Comfort Index (CI). This index is a function, as shown by (3), of type of vehicle and speed:

where we have the following:

(i) are overall whole body vibration acceleration;(ii)T y0 is overall whole body vibration acceleration for , measured and averaged in a temporal range () and for a type of vehicles and is overall whole body vibration acceleration for and for a type of vehicles;(iii) is the average speed of the vehicle.

Once the value of CI is identified, some reference thresholds were chosen to determine the vibrational comfort degree inside the vehicle:

(i)if CI is less than 0.315 m/s², it is “not uncomfortable”;(ii)if CI = 0.315 m/s² – 0.565 m/s², it is a “little uncomfortable”;(iii)if CI = 0.565 m/s² – 0.9 m/s², it is “fairly uncomfortable”;(iv)if CI = 0.565 m/s² – 0.9 m/s², it is fairly “uncomfortable”;(v)if CI = 1.425 m/s² – 2.25 m/s², it is “very uncomfortable”;(vi)if CI is greater than 2.25 m/s², it is “extremely uncomfortable.”

4. Experiments and Results

Instrumental analysis was carried out along a stretch of road, with excellent road surface condition and with a length of about 5.0 Km, with nonhomogeneous road paving because of the presence of stone artificial bumps.

The test site is located in the City of Rende (Cosenza) along Viale Principe (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Test site.

Five vehicles of different categories were used for the instrumental analysis, for each of which 15 measurements were made, in order to have significant statistical relevance.

Data collected by the instrument, in any survey, were exported through the software dB Maestro Ver5.5 (Figure 5).

Figure 5: dB Maestro screenshot for exporting data.

For each tested vehicle and for each measurement, the value of was determined. Then the model was calibrated by means of an exponential regression, described by (3), determining coefficients of dependent variables for each vehicle class useful to determine CI (Table 2).

Table 2: Determination of coefficients of CI for vehicle.

Model
Vehicle classification

Land Rover Freelander 2
SUV
0.0638
0.0585

Alfa Romeo Giulietta
Sport sedan
0.0688
0.0589

Opel Insignia
Sedan
0.0588
0.0628

Ford Fiesta
Compact car
0.0611
0.0643

Opel Zafira Tourer
Minivan
0.0694
0.0595

For each of the five vehicles, the graph linking the traveling speed and the Comfort Index (CI) is determined.

Figures 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 show the trend of Comfort Index varying the traveling speed and the type of car. As can be seen from the value of , for each type of car, the reliability of the exponential curve, which approximates the value of data obtained in the 15 measurements, is extremely high.

Figure 6: CI trend for Land Rover Freelander 2.

Figure 7: CI trend for Alfa Romeo Giulietta.

Figure 8: CI trend for Ford Fiesta.

Figure 9: CI trend for Opel Insignia.

Figure 10: CI trend for Opel Zafira Tourer.

In order to have a more complete and clear view of differences between the various vehicles, we have shown a graph summarizing the CI trend for each type.

Figure 11 shows the CI trend at different speed for all types of vehicle, highlighting some differences between the same types of vehicle. In fact, at low speeds the most comfortable vehicle is the Opel Insignia (sedan); however at high speeds the most comfortable vehicle is the Land Rover Freelander 2 (SUV).

Figure 11: General CI trend.

5. Conclusions

The user interprets the quality of road track through perceptions, often subjective, resulting in one of the possible variables of route selection.

The definition of Comfort Index (CI) allows identifying a measure of quality of the road track and can be a parameter for choosing the path. This study has identified an evaluation criterion of Comfort Index (CI) specific for five vehicles of different categories and travel speed. Some reference thresholds and six classes of vibrational comfort were also identified.

Starting from the analysis carried out on the test site, it was estimated that for speeds over 37 km/h, for each vehicle class, the road track results in being “fairly uncomfortable”; also for speeds over 45 km/h the road track results in being “uncomfortable.”

Therefore, while driving at speeds far below the maximum limit allowed by the Highway Code, in reference to all the five vehicles the road track results in being “uncomfortable.”

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Acknowledgments

Thanks go to AESSE Environment s.r.l. and 01 dB Acoem for providing instruments used in this research and engineer Piertoni Cambiaggio for the fruitful cooperation offered in training authors to use instrumentation. Thanks go, also, to the dealership Tema Motori in Rende (CS) for the grant of some vehicles used in the surveys.

References

M. J. Griffin, “Discomfort from feeling vehicle vibration,” Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 45, no. 7-8, pp. 679–698, 2007.

I. D. Griffiths and F. J. Langdon, “Subjective response to road traffic noise,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 16–32, 1968.

R. Gambart, H. Myncke, and A. Cops, “Study of annoyance by traffic noise in Leuven (Belgium),” Applied Acoustics, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 193–203, 1976.

D. C. Festa, D. W. E. Mongelli, V. Astarita, and P. Giorgi, “First results of a new methodology for the identification of road surface anomalies,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics (SOLI '13), pp. 192–197, Dongguan, China, July 2013.

V. Astarita, D. C. Festa, D. W. E. Mongelli, and A. Tassitani, “New methodology for the identification of road surface anomalies,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics (SOLI '14), pp. 149–154, IEEE, Qingdao, China, October 2014.

V. Barone, D. W. E. Mongelli, and A. Tassitani, “Definition and validation of a methodology to identify the road surface anomalies on the streets by measuring the noise and vibration,” International Journal of Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, vol. 9, pp. 677–682, 2015.

S. d'Elia, F. Crocco, and D. Mongelli, “An integrated prediction model to define the level of noise in urban areas,” in Proceedings of the 4th WSEAS International Conference on Urban Planning Transportation (UPT '11), pp. 399–404, Corfu Island, Greece, July 2011.

D. W. E. Mongelli, “An integrated prediction model for traffic noise in an urban area,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics (SOLI '13), pp. 198–204, Dongguan, China, July 2013.

M. C. Gameiro da Silva, “Measurements of comfort in vehicles,” Measurement Science & Technology, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. R41–R60, 2002.

C. Y. Lin, L. J. Chen, Y. Y. Chen, and W. C. Lee, “A comfort measuring system for public transportation systems using participatory phone sensing,” in Proceedings of the ACM PhoneSense, 2010.

ISO, “Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration,” ISO 2631, International Standard Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1997.

European Parliament—Council of the European Union, “Directive 2002/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration) (sixteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC),” Official Journal of the European Communities L, vol. 177, no. 13, pp. 13–20, 2002.

International Organization for Standardization, “Human response to vibration—measuring instrumentation (international standard),” ISO 8041, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.