IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tjrtxx/v7y2019i4p279-296.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison study of ride comfort indices between Sperling’s method and EN 12299

Author

Listed:
  • Yanran Jiang
  • Bernard K. Chen
  • Cameron Thompson

Abstract

Ride comfort refers to human tolerance to vibration exposure over time. Presently, ISO 2631, EN 12,299 and Sperling’s method are the most common evaluation methods for assessing passenger comfort on trains. It is difficult to establish a universal set of requirements because passengers’ perception of comfort may be affected by various factors such as vibration, noise, track condition, etc. In this paper, existing standards and methods for evaluating ride comfort are assessed. A case study of V/Line passenger train in Australia in which the dynamic response is measured and used to evaluate the Continuous Comfort index, Mean Comfort index, and Sperling index. Based on the previous findings and the experimental results, similarities and benefits between these ride comfort methods are analysed and discussed. A new compound Sperling’s index is proposed and the correlations of various ride comfort indices are established.

Suggested Citation

  • Yanran Jiang & Bernard K. Chen & Cameron Thompson, 2019. "A comparison study of ride comfort indices between Sperling’s method and EN 12299," International Journal of Rail Transportation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(4), pages 279-296, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:tjrtxx:v:7:y:2019:i:4:p:279-296
    DOI: 10.1080/23248378.2019.1616329
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/23248378.2019.1616329
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/23248378.2019.1616329?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:tjrtxx:v:7:y:2019:i:4:p:279-296. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tjrt20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.