Subjective Odor Evaluation in Automotive Industry

Lee, Samuel E.

doi:10.4271/2007-01-1430

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…r door = 0:781m, H door = 1:261m, A extractors = 0:004m 2 , A leakage = 0:0063m 2 , u = 45 8 The initial swept air volume, air mass, and the total air exit area are defined as: 36 Automotive sound 40 listeners used Hara et al 37 Door closing sound company employees Lee et al 27 Automotive sound quality 33 luxury automotive club member Chen and Wang 38 Automotive interior sound quality 30 (students/professors/ drivers) Lee 39 Automotive odor evaluation 20-30 interested people Flannagan et al 40 Led headlamps 25 active drivers Tsutsumi et al 41 Cabin comfort and fatigue 15 college aged members Dang et al 32 On-center steering force 15 research staffs Zhai and Conggan 42 Sound quality 24 evaluators Baker et al 43 Sound quality 12 untrained jurors (customers) Isa et al (2014) 44 Vehicle Drivability 4 Expert drivers Hamdi et al ( 2007) 45 Brake rattle noise 3 Expert evaluators Rajesh et al 46 Brake performance 5 Expert drivers Jang et al 47 On-center handling 1 Professional test driver Chandrasekaran et al 48 Drivability 5 Expert drivers Crolla et al 49 Vehicle handling 8 Expert drivers Eduardo 50 Vehicle steering 3 Expert drivers Nybacka et al 33 Vehicle Steering 7-10 Expert drivers Liu et al 51 Vehicle Considering the above calculated initial values and using time interval of Dt = 0:0001 s, the equations ( 6) and ( 7) are solved iteratively until door opening angle is 0 8 and swept air volume V air = 0. The total air binding energy is calculated as E air binde = 8, 61Joule.…”

Section: Air Binding Effect Based On the Below Inputsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rear boot swing door closing effort: Calculations, objective and subjective evaluations in an LCV model

Altinisik

Bolova

2021

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The prediction model for the energy contributors is studied to define the effect of door components. The model is validated by experimental measurements on produced vehicles. The correlation of the control results and the evaluation methods among the representative customers, appraisers and senior experts are performed and compared by objective energy measurements. The subjective evaluation aims to clarify real customer expectations in door closing process and carry it to new product development phase. This will also improve the competency of appraisers in final assembly approval zones. The energy contributors for boot swing door is numerically calculated and validated by experimental measurements in easy and hard-closing doors. Subjective evaluations in 45 vehicles with different closing energies were performed by three different groups as representative customers, appraisers, and senior experts. The results were evaluated by statistical tools. The major energy contributors were found as air binding, seal resistance and check strap both in the calculations and in the experiments. The results demonstrated good correlation between numerical model and objective measurements. Besides, the subjective evaluations showed parallel trends with objective energy measurements. The variation in customer evaluations is more than appraisers and experts. Customers are severer in the evaluations of hard-closing doors and more sensitive in 10° door closing angle. This is a unique study for rear boot swing door closing effort in an LCV model. The study contains both definitions of factors, components that contributes in door closing energy and subjective evaluations to correlate the closing behaviors of representative customers, appraisers, and senior experts. The output of the study would be used to improve the vehicle control plan (VCP) and design standards in new model development phase.

show abstract