Insight into the lateral ride discomfort thresholds of young-adult bus passengers at multiple postures: Case of Singapore

Nguyen, Teron; NguyenDinh, Nen; Lechner, Bernhard; Wong, Yiik Diew

doi:10.1016/j.cstp.2019.07.002

Cited by 25 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…RQ 3 intends to complement the second research question. As mentioned in the introduction, the comfort perceived by the bus's occupants may encompass other types of comfort other than thermal [4,5].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The city public transportation bus has the purpose of transporting numerous people and is considered a sustainable means of transportation [1][2][3]. The studies about comfort in buses may encompass the knowledge areas of thermal, acoustic, luminous, vibration, air quality, acceleration, and ergonomic comfort [4,5], and the influence of those areas might reflect on the level of service and the passengers' choice to use this means of transportation [6][7][8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Review of Thermal Comfort Applied in Bus Cabin Environments

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As of 2020, it has been 50 years since the publication of Fanger’s predictive model of thermal comfort that was designed for indoor environments and attention worldwide is directed at the COVID-19 pandemic and discussions around recommendations for these indoor environments. In this context, many environments and their occupants will suffer consequences related to thermal comfort due to the necessary indoor air changes. In bus cabins, the impact might be even greater, seeing that they are responsible for the mass transportation of people. Thus, this paper intends to review the studies on thermal comfort that analyzed bus cabin environments. It adapts the PRISMA methodology and, as a result, it includes 22 research papers published in journals. Among those, 73% focused on approaching the occupants’ thermal sensation, followed by fuel/energy economy (18%), and driver productivity (9%). The current state-of-the-art indicates that air temperature and air velocity were the parameters most employed by the included studies, but eight papers analyzed all six parameters of the standard models of thermal comfort. The most employed model of thermal comfort was Fanger’s, but there has not been an investigation that assesses its consistency in predicting the occupants’ thermal sensation in the explored environment. Nevertheless, the analyzed studies recommended constant air change inside closed buses or keeping them open to minimize adverse effects on the occupants’ health, especially due to airborne diseases and CO2 concentration possibly being a suitable indicator to identify the need for air change.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Thermal Comfort Applied in Bus Cabin Environments

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are two levels of ride discomfort: Level 1 (uncomfortable) and Level 2 (loss of balance). Recently, a study in [17] surveyed the ride comfort of passengers at multiple postures aboard buses and suggested comfortable acceleration thresholds for the regular bus as well as for the future AB. The vehicle speeds at the discomfort threshold (uncomfortable at a y =1.5 m/s 2 ) could be suggested when there is a high number of standing passengers while the vehicle speeds at a great discomfort threshold (very uncomfortable at a y = 1.75 m/s 2 ) could be suggested in case of all seated passengers.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The long corridor included several intersections where the merged-platoons must navigate along sharp turning curves (see Figure 3). Apart from LRT and HSR ride comfort criteria, the other three lateral thresholds regarding passenger posture onboard [17] were also considered. For longitudinal acceleration and comfort, bus deceleration/braking a x = −0.75m/s 2 [33] was used to define the reduced speed areas, which is much lower than the desired deceleration b of the designed vehicle.…”

Section: The Effects Of Ride Comfort Criteria On Dart Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The platooning protocol is first developed to simulate the coupling/decoupling process. Platooning performance is then simulated on PTV VISSIM platform for various scenarios to compare the performance of DART platooning under several ride comfort levels: three bus comfort levels [17] and two railway criteria. The horizontal alignment and passenger ride comfort are linked based on the back-calculation of vehicle speeds at different lateral acceleration levels.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Platooning of Autonomous Public Transport Vehicles: The Influence of Ride Comfort on Travel Delay

Nguyen

Xie²,

Liu³

et al. 2019

Sustainability

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of advanced technologies has led to the emergence of autonomous vehicles. Herein, autonomous public transport (APT) systems equipped with prioritization measures are being designed to operate at ever faster speeds compared to conventional buses. Innovative APT systems are configured to accommodate prevailing passenger demand for peak as well as non-peak periods, by electronic coupling and decoupling of platooned units along travel corridors, such as the dynamic autonomous road transit (DART) system being researched in Singapore. However, there is always the trade-off between high vehicle speed versus passenger ride comfort, especially lateral ride comfort. This study analyses a new APT system within the urban context and evaluates its performance using microscopic traffic simulation. The platooning protocol of autonomous vehicles was first developed for simulating the coupling/decoupling process. Platooning performance was then simulated on VISSIM platform for various scenarios to compare the performance of DART platooning under several ride comfort levels: three bus comfort and two railway criteria. The study revealed that it is feasible to operate the DART system following the bus standing comfort criterion (ay = 1.5 m/s2) without any significant impact on system travel time. For the DART system operating to maintain a ride comfort of the high-speed train (HST) and light rail transit (LRT), the delay can constitute up to ≈ 10% and ≈ 5% of travel time, respectively. This investigation is crucial for the system delay management towards precisely designed service frequency and improved passenger ride comfort.

show abstract