MAN-TRACTOR

SYSTEM DYNAMICS : TOWARDS

BETTER SUSPENSION
SYSTEM FOR HUMXN
RIDE COMFORT*

M. K. PATIL,M. S.P,AL,AKXAMY+and D. N. GHISTA~

Biomedical Engineering Division. Indian Institute of Technology, Sladras-600036. India

It is found that tractor drivers suffer from a number of disorders of the spine and supporting
structuresat low frequency and high amplitude vibrations that are encountered in their field Activities. In this
paper the occupant - tractor system is modelled as a lumped parameter sys:em: the composite model is
analysed, by computer simulation, (for vertical and rotational (pitch) vibrational res?nse to ground
reaction simulating steady state sinusoidal forcing function inputs), for (a) relaxation tyv seat suspension
and (b) relaxation type suspensions for both the seat and the front axle. These responses dre compared to
responses for (c) rigid seat and front axle, and (d) standard type front axle suspensions. 3s determined by
previous investigators. It is found that the intensity ofthese (harmful) vibrations. is reduced by selecting these
suspension parameters such that the responses ofthe human body parts are minimized in the frequency range
of 0.5-l1 Hz. Both the types of suspensions are then compared for their vibration isolation characteristics.

Abstract -

ISTRODUCTIOS
In our highly mechanized society. nearly every one is
exposed to vibration at least as a passenger in an
automobile. On trucks, tractors and other military and
commercial vehicles, the function is generally other
than the transport of man. On these, he exists only to
accomplish the machine function. To this extent, mans
comfort and even his efficiency have often been
incidental to or, at best, the last consideration in the
design of the machine. These conditions make exact
knowledge of the vibration environment to which man
is exposed, his tolerance to vibration, and the consequence or cost of exceeding them important and
necessary. Some general but important evidence of the
physiological damage and cost of vibration has been
developed by medical surveys of people in occupations
connected with driving or operating rough riding
vehicles such as trucks and tractors.
A survey of orthopaedic surgeons (Radke, 1957) in
the United States definitely establishes that riding on
trucks or tractors either causes or aggravates a number
of disorders of the spine, and supporting structures of
drivers. Vibration causes impairment of human tracking ability, proportional to vibrational amplitudes,
which is greatest at very low frequencies (below 5 Hz).
Tasks that require steadiness or precision of muscular
control are likely to show decreased efficiencies in
vibrational environments (Grether, 1971).
It was ascertained that mechanical stimuli, such as
individual impacts or vibrations, generally cause va-

Receiced 12 Februq 1978; receired for publicarion 19

May 1978.
t Department of Structural Engineering. College of
Engineering, Guindy, Madras-600025, India.
$ Spinal Cord Injury Center, Veterans Administration
Hospital, Palo Alto, CA 94304, U.S.A.

soconstriction of the arterioles or capillaries (Guillemin, 1953). High incidences of osteoarthritis. traumatic fibrositis, herniated disks. coccygodynia, lumbosacral pain, abdominal pain and intestinal disorders
are exhibited by drivers of trucks, tractors. motor
cycles and other vehicles or machinery in which
appreciable vibrations and jolts occur (von Gierke.
1959). Experimental studies on rransmission and tolerance of vertical vibrations, caused by tractors indicate
that man is exposed to vibrations where he is vibrated
(in the frequency range 0.5-l 1 Hz) at levels of intensity
above the so-called uncomfortable or unpleasant
thresholds and is frequently exposed to vibration
intensities above even the so-called intolerable and
extremely uncomfortable levels I Radke, 1957). Studies
on effects of angular (pitch) vibrations (Pradko et al..
1965) has shown that subjecti\-e tolerance is lowest at
4-6 Hz. It is found that the tractor drivers are
subjected to extremely uncomfortable levels of vertical
and longitudinal angular (pitch) vibrations (Radke,
1957). The development of a proper seat suspension to
reduce vertical component of vibration to an acceptable level has resulted in increase in the rotational
(pitch) vibrations (Sjoflot, 1973).
The solution to the problem lies in the isolation of
the man from the basic vehicle (in this case the tractor)
vibration (both vertical and rotational) by means of a
suitable suspension. The suspension principle may be
applied to the seat. or to the entire operator area. or to
the vehicle wheels (hfathews. 1972) as is done in the
case of passenger automobiles.
In this work an attempt is made to isolate vertical as
well as rotational (pitch) vibrations from being transmitted to the driver of the tractor. Two cases of
suspensions (1) on the seat onl- II) on seat and front
axle are analysed and compared to find out their
suitability for isolation of both vertical and pitch

397

398

M.

K.

PATIL. 51. S. PALASICH.+MY and D. N. GHIST,+

vibrations. It is found that measurement of vibration

on the suspended seat alone does not truly reflect the
vibration level to which the human body parts are
exposed (Mathews, 1973). Hence designing the seat
suspension and seat and axle suspension alone without
taking into account the combined effect of the vehicle
and the occupant does not isolate the human body
parts from the severe vibrations to which tractor is
subjected. Work at the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, U.K. has shown that a mechanical
simulation of the human body characteristics together
with the seat is necessary (Mathews, 1967a). Hence, in
this study presented here the occupant (represented by
7 masses) and the tractor (represented by 2 masses) are
modelled together in the form of a lumped mass system
inter-connected by springs and dashpots. The resulting
responses of body parts are studied to select the
best parameters of the seat and axle suspension sysiem
in order to ensure that the occupant body segments are
not subject to large amplitude vertical vibrations and
pitch vibrations in the 0.5-l 1 Hz frequency range.
Herein, the first part of the study deals with relaxation
type of suspension (Gallagher et al., 1952) to the seat.
The second part deals with the relaxation type of
suspension used for both seat and the front axle. Both
the types of suspensions are then compared for their
vibration isolation characteristics.
ANALYSIS OF TRACTOR-OCCUPAST
RESPOSSE FOR RELAXATION
SEAT SUSPENSIOS

Standard type
seat suspension

Fig. 1. Occupant-tractor model with relaxation suspension

to seat.

VIBRATIONAL
TYPE OF

The human occupant model

The tractor occupant is idealized as a lumped

parameter nonlinear model (Muksian, 1974). The
lumped masses as shown in Fig. 1 represent head, back,
torso, thorax, diaphragm, abdomen and pelvis. The
model proposed by Muksian (1974), is modified in our
study to include the damping and elasticity of the
buttocks. These masses are connected by springs and
dashpots, representing the elastic and damping properties of the connective tissue between the segments.
The values of the tissue springs and dashpot parameters are obtained from studies on the characteristics
of specific subsystem (Muksian, 1974; Huang, 1972)
and are listed in Table 1. It will be shown later that the
above model response to vertical vibration matches
very well with the experimental response by Goldman
et al. (1960).

Table 1. Parameter values of occupant model

Mass
(M)
(kgf/cm/sec*)
M, = 0.00555
M, = 0.00694
M, = 0.03333
M,
Md
M,
M,

=
=
=
=

0.001389
0.0004629
0.00602
0.0277

Damping constant
(C)
(kgf/em/=)

Spring constant
(K)
@$/cm)

c* = 3.651
c, 5f 3.651
c: = 0.298
Cj = 3.651
C$ = 0.298
C,L= 0.298
C: = 0.298
c, = 0.378

KI = 53.64
K* = 53.64
K; = 0.8941
K; = 53.64
KG = 0.8941
Kd+= 0.8941
K: = 0.8941
K, = 25.5

* The units of damping constants, giving rise to linear and

nonlinear
forces respectively
are: kgf/cm/sec
and
kgf/(cm/sec) 3. l The units of spring constants, giving rise to
linear and nonlinear forces respectively are kgf/cm and
kgf/cm.

Modelling of the tractor

The tractor is idealized (as shown in Fig. 1) by seat,

chassis body and tyre masses (lumped together) interconnected by springs and dashpot of the seat
suspension system. The tyres are represented by linear
vertical springs in parallel with velocity dependent
dampers. The parameters for the tractor are obtained
from Mathews (1967b) and are listed in Table 2(a)
along with the parameters of the seat suspension
(found by model simulation), giving the best isolation

characteristics. The seat suspension used is of the

relaxation type (Gallagher et al., 1952). The relaxation
type of seat suspension consists ofa spring (of constant
K,) in parallel with a system of a spring (of constant
K,,) in series with a dashpot (of constant C,). The
relaxation spring suspension is characterized by two
parameters known as

(kgf/em)

Spring
conslant

M,, = 2.7189

M, = 0.004625

Muf = 0.0347

M tW, = 2.6842

M, = 0.004625

C*aI = 2.42

C, = 0.1882
C = 4.52
(.:
4= 5.53

K,=3;K,,=48
K;, = 506
K&T,= 893
K,;, = 1430
q, = 564

SWI untl /km

Kg = 506

= 564

K,=3;K_=48

K;,

with rrluxu/iott

CS = 0.1882
C;, = 2.42
C;, = 4.52
84.7

(cm)

fl

Distance of
back wheel
from cg

84.7

118.5

118.5

76.8

76.8

102.4

102.24

P
(cm)

(cm)
_- __~__...._

(cm)

Radius of
gyration
of tractor

and suspensions

Distance of
seu I
from c.g.

values of tractor

Distance of
front wheel
from e.g.

2. Parameter

uxle s~r.s~~~nsiut~

Purutwrrr ~~durs4$frucfur wirh rrlaxur ion s~*uIsuspt*n.sion

(kgf/cm/sec)
-~~-~~

(h) Iuru~t~crc*r duc~.s <$ Iructor

(a)

(kgf/cm /se?)

Mass

Damping
constant

Table

457

457

(cm)

Wavelength
rord/lield
irregularity

of

(cm)

Magnitude
of
impressed
vibration
(lield depression
or elevation)

10

IO

Paramelers
of
relaxation
suspension
seul/seat id
front axle

100

ht.

K.

PTIL.

M.

and

S. P.ALASICHAMY

D. N. GHISTA

Diaphragm

is the mass of the seat.

M&i:3 + C,,($,-i,)
Composite

model response for seat suspension

+ Cth(.i.s-$r)3

+ C,(i, -f,)

The composite model of the human seated on a

tractor seat, moving on an irregular terrain is shown in
Fig. 1. In deriving the dynamic model of the
tractor-occupant
for simulation and analysis, a number of simplifying assumptions were made: (a) The
road or field profile is approximated to be ofsinusoidal
shape and is of 5 cm in amplitude (Radke, 1957). (b)
The vehicle was considered in one plane only, the
longitudinal plane through the center of gravity with
the front and rear wheel pairs combined with the
chassis mass. (c) Forces and couples due to wheel
rotations and draught forces were ignored. (d) Rotational (pitch) vibrations for the occupant body parts
are considered to be the same as that of the tractor
chassis. (e) Displacements were considered to be
sufficiently small for the tyres and spring motions (of
the tractor) to be always within their linear range,
whilst small angular displacements also allowed the.
sine of angles to be replaced in the equations of motion
by the angles in rad, i.e. sin 6 = 0.
The composite model of tractor occupant is thus
subjected to sinusoidal vibrations due to the ground
reaction simulating forces (that the tractor would be
subject to, at its speed range while traversing its
terrain). While deriving the governing equations of
motion, the rotational motion of the tractor chassis in
addition to the vertical motion is included. The
stiffness and damping characteristics of torso, thorax,
diaphragm and abdomen are represented by nonlinear
springs and nonlinear dashpots (Muksian, 1974). The
equation of motion for each mass consists of the inertia
term and the forces exerted on the mass by the springs
and the dashpots due to the relative motion of the
connected masses. The governing vibration equations
of the various masses of the composite model are put
down as follows:
Head

+ C,(fs -.?,)

+ K&V, -,rcI) i K,(y5 --.v,)~

+ Krh(.~.s-.rJ3
= 0.

(5)

Abdomen
MO.& + C,(j,-jJ)

+ cd(j6-_&)J

+ C,(i.6-.i+)3

+ K,(.V, -y2)

= 0.

+ C&-j,)

+ C&t--$,)

(1)

Back
M,&

+ C&--jJ
+C&

-3,Y

+ K,,(.v, -ys)

+ KlJy* _).I)
+ K,(yz

+ Klb(k2 -y,)

- y,) =

(2)

0.

Torso
WY, + C,,(i-L)
+ C,(is -j*)
+ K,(y, -)..J

+ c,,(j,-j2)3

+ C,(J5-j,)

+ K&j

+ K,,(J,

-y2)

+ K,(J, -y,?

-NJ

= 0.

(3)

+ K,(c~-I~)

M,h_V$
+ C,(j,--j,)

+ C,(jl--j,)

+ C,,($,-j.5)

+ C&4-);5)3

+ K,(?,-ys)

+ K,(,v,-_v,13

+ Mya-Y&

+ K,,0,-yA3

= 0.

(4)

+ K,(.Y~-).s)
= 0.

(6)

Pelcis
M,.?: + C,(i- -;,,

+ C.(?, -j.$

+ C,(.& -$8)

+ K,(.v, -y6)

t Cb(j., --.i.J
+ K,(y, -.J3

--I~) + K,(y, - yz) = 0.

+ K,(y:

(7)

Seat
M,.i$ -t C,(,i+$,)
+ K,(y,
Relaxation
K&V,-y8)

-!.,)

+ K,(ys-ylo+cO)
+ K&8-y,)

= 0.

(8)

suspension damper piston

+ C,(;,-.&,,+c&

= 0.

(9)

Chassis (vertical)
M$r* + C,( ;o - f, -cd,

+ C,/(_&-Awcoswt+b~)
+ C,,[_,,-Awcos(,c~-cc)-ai]

+ K,/(y,,-Asinwt+@)
f K,,[yvl,,-Asin(wt-a)-a01
+ K,[y,o -y* -ce] = 0.

(10)

Chassis (rotation)
cc,(~,o-_i$-c~)
hfJB+ bC,Ji,,

- Aw cos wt + b6)

-aC,,[j,o-A~cos(wt--l)-aO]
- cK,(y,, -y* -cQ
+ bK&,,,-Asinwt+b@

= 0.

(11)

where _iFr,_$rrepresent the corresponding accelerations

and velocities of the respective masses. The above
coupled nonlinear ordinary differential equations were
programmed on the IBM 370/153 computer and by
using the Continuous System Modelling Program
(CSMP) were solved to give yi (the displacements of
human body parts and tractor) and 0 (the rotation of
the tractor chassis) responses to steady state forcing
functional inputs at different vibrational frequencies
(representing field irregularities and the speed of the
tractor). By dividing the above responses by the input
amplitudes, respective amplitudes ratio are calculated.
Results for relaxation

Thorax

+ C&-j,,

+ K,(yb -1.7) + K,(y, -y,)

- aK,,[y,,,-Asin(wt-x)-at?]

Mkj:l + Ch(jl -_Q

+ K,,(,Vs -?;)

type seat suspension

Figure 2 shows the head to pelvis acceleration ratio

as a function of frequency. Superimposed are the
experimental values given by Goldman and van
Gierke (1960) for sinusoidal inputs. Figure 2 shows

Man-tracror

1
z

,2345

7892

Inputfrequency,

system dynamics

HZ

Fig. 2. Head to pelvis acceleration ratio.

that the model used in this study is in excellent

agreement with Goldman and von Gierke (1960).
Hence, this composite model is used in further analysis
to find the responses of body parts. The resulting
responses of body parts are studied to select the
best parameters of the suspension system in order to
ensure that the responses of the body segments to
vertical as well as rotational (pitch) vibration are
minimized in the 0.5-l 1 Hz frequency range.
Figures 3-5 represent the response amplitude ratios
(the ratio of the response amplitude to the input
amplitude) of the tractor seat and other body parts
with frequencies of vibration ranging from 0.5 to
11 Hz. The parameters of the relaxation seat suspension, namely I(,, ; and /? are varied so that the
responses of the human body parts to vibration are
minimized over 0.5-l 1 Hz frequency range. Figure
3(a) represents the responses of the tractor seat and
head of the occupant for parameter values of K,
- 3 kgf/cm, ; = 4 and p = 10 which give the feast
response of the body parts as compared to the other
parameter combinations. The parameter values of ;
and b arrived here coincide with values obtained by
Gallagher et al. (1952) for best relaxation suspension
giving the least response. The maximum amplitude
ratio occurs at 1 Hz and its value for head and seat are
of the order of 2.35 and 1.95 respectively, showing that
the body part (head) has 20% higher amplitude ratio as
compared to the seat. This establishes the importance
of modelling the body parts (along with the tractor)
and designing the suspension system (for human
comfort) based on the principle of minimizing the
amplitude ratios of body parts rather than that of only
the tractor seat. The amplitude ratio of the head
attains a value of 0.05 at higher frequencies showing
that there is higher attenuation of the head (body part)
as compared to the seat at higher frequencies. Superimposed are the experimental values of response of
man (Fig. 3b) sitting on rigid seat of a tractor from
Radke (1957). Comparing Fig. 3(a) with 3(b). it is
found that the relaxation seat suspension is found to
reduce (1) the maximum amplitude ratio of 3.7 (for

=reque?q.

h2

Fig. 3. Response of tractor occupants head to bibration in a

relaxation seat suspension as compared to rigid seat.

head in rigid seat) to a value of 2.35 (at frequency of

1 Hz) thus effecting a 37, reduction in the response.
(2) the amplitude ratios considerably (by 96,) at
higher frequencies.
Figure 4 represents response of pelvis and abdomen
to vertical vibration, at frequencies ranging from 0.5 to
11 Hz. It is found that the highest amplitude ratios
occur at a frequency of I Hz with a peak value of
amplitude ratio equal to 2.25 and 2.375 for pelvis and
abdomen respectively. The response of pelvis crosses
the response of abdomen at 2.5 Hz and at higher
frequencies its value is found to be higher than that of
abdomen.
Figure 5(a) shows response of thorax and diaphragm with the input frequency. It is found that the
responses of both these parts coincide and it has the
maximum amplitude ratio of 2.4 at 1 Hz. At higher
frequencies (from 3 to 11 Hz) the amplitude ratios
decrease from a value of 0.2 to a value of 0.01. Figure
5(b) represents the response of back and torso (with
input frequencies) showing that the torso has higher
response as compared to the back. The maximum
amplitude ratios are of the order of 2.33 and 2.35 for
back and torso respectively at a frequency of I Hz.
It is found from Figs. 3-5 that the body parts have
higher and lower responses than the seat at lower and
higher frequencies respectively. This establishes the
importance of modelling the body parts (along with
the tractor and seat) and designing the suspension
system (for human comfort) based on the principle of
minimizing the amplitude ratios of body parts rather

M.

402

*ol9-

!ar.7
I6
I5
:2

&l 1.30
i 12t
a

I
I

I
,
I
I

K.

- -----

P.ATIL. M. S. PALASICHAMY and D. N. GHISTA

Pelws
Abdomen

1
I
I

Pelvis

I., -

I
, _--*b&me

IO-

1
I

Frequency,

HZ

Fig. 4. Response oftractor occupants pelvis and abdomen to

vibration in a relaxation seat suspension.

than that of only the tractor seat. It is found that the

thorax and diaphragm have the highest response and
the pelvis the least response. Figure 6 shows the pitch
response (ratio of pitch to input amplitude, in ft) of the
body (chassis) with input vibration frequency. It is
found that the maximum response of 0.3425 rad/ft of
input amplitude, occurs at 3 Hz. This is found to be
90% less than the literature value of 2.3 (Mathews,
1967b) for rigid seat tractor response.
From the body part response characteristics shown
in Fig. 3-6 it is found that the relaxation seat
suspension tractor is better than the rigid seat tractor,
since it reduced the vertical vibration level (transmitted to body parts) by 37% and rotational (pitch)
vibration by 90% thus improving the ride comfort to a
considerable extent.
OF

TRACTOR OCCUPANT VIBRATIOSAL

RESPOSSE FOR RELAXATION TYPE

SLSPESSIOK

FOR SEAT ASD THE FROST

ASLE

Herein, the tractor occupant is idealized as before

(as done in the previous section). The modelling of the
tractor is modified as follows. The tractor is idealized
by seat and chassis body (consisting of chassis mass
and back tyres and axles lumped together) interconnected by springs and dashpot of the seat relaxation

HZ

Frequency,

Hz

Fig. 5. Response of tractor occupants thorax, diaphragm,

back and torso.

Ii

II

12345679

ASALYSlS

Frequency,

IIIII
Frequency,

9
Hz

1 I

II

Fig. 6. kesponse of tractor chassis pitch vibration

relaxation type of seat suqxnsion.

for

suspension. Front axleand wheels are lumped together

and a relaxation suspension is provided in between the
chassis and the front wheel. The front and back tyre
elasticities and damping characteristics are represented by the respective spring and dashpots as shown

Man-tractor system dynamics

Relaxorion

From

front

t -j,,,

cc/c.&

Back

wheel suspension

damper

+ ~rfr(C1, -Y*o-w

= 0.

(14)

wheel

M,/YI,
Thomx
440

403

+ Cc,bk.i.,l)

+ C,/(~,z--Awcoswt)

+ K,~b,,-ylo-~~)

MO

+Kg/(yL2-Asinwr)=O.

(15)

The above governing equations [( 12)-( 15)] along with

equations (l)-(9) are programmed on the IBM
370/155 computer and by using CSMP were solved to
give yi and 0 responses to steady state forcing functional inputs at different frequencies of vibration. By
dividing the above responses by the input amplitudes.
respective amplitude ratios are calculated.
Rest&s

for

reluxarion

type

sear

and

front

axle

suspension

A 5,

wt

Fig. 7. Occupant-tractor
model with relaxation
suspension to both seat and front axle.

type of

in Fig. 7. The resulting composite model of the seated

human on the tractor seat is shown in Fig. 7. The
parameter values of the tractor aregiven in Table 2(b).
The governing vibration equations of the various
masses of the composite model (shown in Fig. 7) are
found to be same for masses from head to seat as given
in equations (1) to (9) in the previous section. Hence
the remaining governing equations for tractor chassis,
relaxation front wheel suspension damper and front
wheel are put down as follows:
Chassis (vertical)
Mrv,j:,o + C,(i,,-cL.i$,

Figure 8(a) shows the response (in the form of

amplitude ratios) of the tractor seat and human head
as a function of input frequency of vibration. The
maximum amplitude ratios of 2 and 2.35 for seat and
head respectively occur at a frequency of 1 Hz and
thereafter there is (at high frequencies) higher attenuation of the,head as compared to the seat response.
The amplitude ratios of the head lie between 0.1 and
0.025 for frequencies in the range of 3-l 1 respectively.
Superimposed on this figure is the tractor seat response (Fig. 8b) of the seat for standard type of front

SO-

55-

so(bt
45-

4c

Tractor seat response for standard

type of front alIe SSDeSlo
[from Nathews,
1367)

cs
C
2 35-

+ c,,(~,,-a~-Awcos(wr-cl)]

d
3
;

+ K,(J,,-ce-.V,)

E
4

30-

+ K,,[J,,-aB-oAsin(wr-z)]
+ K,(y,,--bB-y,z)
+ ~,,*(Plo+~~-Y,J

= 0.

(12)
I5

Chassis (rotation)

-x--2--s-

Trac+or sect
He&

M,,.,p~-cC,(~,o-c~-~,)
-ac,,~.;,o-u~-Awcos(wr-31)]
- cK,(_V,,-ce-_?.g)
- UK&,,

-a6-

sin(wr -a)]

+ bK,(,,,+be--f,J
f bK,,,(.vlo+be-y,,)
l

Refer Appendix

B-4II:

89-

for explanation

=O.
of CSMP.

(13)

Fig. 8. Response of tractor seat and occupants head to

vibration in a relaxation type seat and front axle suspension
as compared to the standard suspension to the front axle.

M. K.

404

PATIL. M. S. PALANKHAMY and

D. N. GHISTA

axle suspension reported from Mathews (1967). By

comparing Figs. 8(a) and 8(b). it is seen that the
relaxation suspension used on seat and front axle have
reduced the maximum response to vertical vibration
from an amplitude ratio of 6 (for standard type of front
axle suspension) to 2.35 and 2 for head, tractor seat
respectively, thus providing a 66% reduction in the
vertical vibration response level.
Figure 9(a) represents the response of thorax and
diaphragm as a function of input frequency. It appears
that responses of both the body parts coincide. Figure
9(b) represents the response of Abdomen as a function
of frequency. Both the figures indicate similar responses. showing the maximum amplitude ratio of 2.35
at a frequency of 1 Hz and thereafter showing high
reductions in amplitude ratios at higher frequencies.
Figure 10(a) shows the response of back and pelvis
as a function of frequency. Pelvis is found to give a
lower response (amplitude ratio of 2.23) as compared
to the back (amplitude ratio of 2.3) at a frequency of
1 Hz. But this trend is reversed at higher frequencies.
Figure 10(b) represents the response of torso with
frequency. The maximum value of the response is
found to be 2.3 at 1 Hz. Both the figures show similar
behaviour showing high response at 1 Hz and attenuation of vibration at higher frequencies.
It is seen from Figs. 8-10 that the body parts have

Head

- Torso

Frequency,

Frequency,

Hz

IO II

HZ

Fig. 10. Response of tractor occupants back. pelvis, torso.

and head to vibration in a relaxation suspension to seat and
front axle.

Thorax and diaphragm

Frequency,

HZ

tbl

-Abdomen

-\

Frequency,

HZ

Fig. 9. Response of tractor occupants thorax, diaphragm

and abdomen to vibration in a relaxation suspension to front
axle and seat.

higher and lower responses than the seat at lower ana

higher frequencies, respectively. Thorax and diaphragm are found to have highest response and the pelvis
the least response.
Figure 11 represents the pitch response (ratio of
pitch of the tractor chassis in rad to input amplitude, in
ft) as a function of input frequency of vibration. This
shows a maximum response of0445 at 3 Hz with high
attenuation at higher frequencies.
Figure 12 represents the variation of pitch responses
with frequencies for relaxation type suspension provided to (1) the tractor seat only, and (2) for both
tractor seat and front wheel combination. Superimposed on this figure are the responses (from Mathews, 1967b) of the same tractor for (a) rigid seat and
front wheel and, (b) standard type front axle suspension. On comparing these responses it is found that (1)
the standard type of suspension provided to the front
axle reduced the maximum pitch response from a value
of 2.3 rad/input amplitude in feet (for rigid seat and
front wheel) to a value of 1.45 (2) by providing the
relaxation suspension to the seat the maximum pitch
response is further reduced to a value of 0.345 (3) by
providing the relaxation type of suspension to the seat
and front axle, the maximum pitch response is reduced
to a value of 0.45.

Man-tractor

system dynamics

405

From the body part response characteristics shown

in Figs. 8-12, it is found that the tractor with
relaxation type of suspension provided to the seat and
front axle is better than the tractor with standard type
of front axle suspension, (Mathews, 1967b). since it
reduced the vertical vibration level (transmitted to the
body parts) by 66% and rotational (pitch) vibration by
70x, thus improving the ride comfort to a considerable extent.
3

COMPARISO3

AXD COSCLUSIOV

J23456

IO

I!

Frequency,
Fig.

Hz

II. Response of tractor chassis pitch vibrations

relaxation type of seat and front axle suspension.

_x

Relaratm type

Relaaotlon type susrxssmn

to seat

for

ssGenslon

Based on responses of the composite human

occupant-tractor
model to ground reaction simulating steady state sinusoidal vibrations, shown in Figs.
3-6 and 8-12, the following comparisons and conclusions are made:
(1) Relaxation type of suspension provided (in this
study) either to the seat or to both the seat and the
front axle of the tractor is better than the standard type
of suspension provided to the front axle of the tractor
(Mathews, 1967b).
(2) Occupants body parts in a tractor with the
relaxation suspension provided to both the .sear and
the frontaxle have slightly lower maximum vertical
vibrations response (amplitude ratio 2.37) as compared to the responses of the body parts (amplitude
ratio 2.4) in a tractor fitted with a relaxation type of
seat suspension.
(3) At low frequencies, pitch responses are lower for
relaxation seat suspension tractor than the relaxation
seat and front axle suspension tractor.
(4) At higher frequencies relaxation seat and front
axle suspension tractors are better than the relaxation
seat suspension tractors, since it is more effective than
the other in attenuating the pitch vibrations of the
body.
(5) By considering both the cost and vibration
isolation characteristics (vertical and pitch vibrations),
it is recommended that the tractors be provided with
only relaxation type of seat suspension.

to seat and front ale

REFEREWES
Gallagher, J. and Volterra. E. (1952) A mathematical analysis
of the relaxation type of vehicle suspension, ASME meeting, paper No. 52-APM
13, 1-8.
Goldman, B. E. and von Gierke. H. E. I 1960). The effects of
shock and vibration on Man. Naval Medical Research
Institute Report No. 60-3. Bethesda.
Grether. W. F. (19711 Vibration and human performance.
Humon Fncrors 13(3). 203 2 16.
Guillemin. V. and Wechsbery. P. t 1953) Physiological effects
of long term repetitive exposure IO mechanical vibration.

Aciat. Med. 24, 208-221.

Fig. 12. Comparison of tractor chassis pitch vibration for (a)
relaxation type seat suspension (b) relaxation type seat and
front axle suspension (c) standard type front axle suspension
(Mathews, 1967)(d)rigidseat
and frontaxle(Mathews.
1967).

Huang, B. K. (1972) Digital simulation analysis of biophyrical systems. IEEE Trcln\. Eiowd. Enyny 19f2). 128 139.
Mathews. J. (1967a) Progress in the application of ergonomics to agricultural
engineering. Paper presented to
Agric. Engng Symp.. Silsoe.

M. K. PATIL. M. S. PALANI~HA.~~Yand D. N.

406

Mathews. J. (1967b) An analogue computer investigation of

the potential improvement in tractor ride afforded by a
flexible front axle, J. clgric. Ennyny Res. 12(I), 48-54.
Mathews. J. (1972) Ergonomics and tractor development.
Paper to B.S.A.L.S./E.R.S. Meeting. Silsoe. Beds. pp.
IX- 143.
Mathews. J. (1973). The measurement of tractor ride comfort.
SAE Meeting. paper No. 730795, Milwaukee. Wisconsin.
Muksian. R. and Nash, C. D. ( 1974) A model for the response
of seated humans to sinusoidal displacements of the seat, J.
Biomuchanics 7, 209 - 2 I 5.
Pradko. F., Orr. T. R. and Lee. R. A. (1965) Human vibration
analysis. S.A.E. Trans. 74. 33 I-339.
Radke. A. 0. (1957) Vehicle vibration.. . mans environment.
ASME paper 57-A. p. 54.
Sjoflot. L. and Suggs. C. W. (1973) Human reactions to whole
body transverse angular vibrations. Eryonontics 16(4).
455-468.
von Gierke. H. E. (1959) Transmission of vibratory energy
through human body tissue. Proc. 1st Nur. Biaphrs. Cont.
Yale University Press. New Haven. CT. pp. 647-668.

M,.,. Mw,

masses of head. back. torso (kgf/cm/se?)

masses of thorax, diaphragm and abdomen
(Kgf/cm/sec )
masses of pelvis. seat and chassis-tyres
(kgf/cm/sec)
masses ofchassis-rear wheel-axlecombination
wheel-axle
front
and
respectively

(kgf/cm/sec-)
K,. Kb. K,

spring

K,,. K,. K,

spring constants of thorax. diaphragm and

abdomen [kgf/cm)
spring constants of pelvis. standard seat and
relaxation seat suspensions (kgf/cm)
spring constant between torso and back

K,.K,.K,
Kfb
Kc,. K:,,
K,f.Kv
c,. C,. c,
C,,. Cd. C.
C,. C,

APPESDIS

GHISTA

Cd

CS M P rlrrcriprion

Cu. Cw

The Continuous System Modelling Program (CSMP) is a

problem - oriented program designed to facilitate the digital
simulation of continuous processes on lar_ne-scale dIgttal
machines. The program provides an application-oriented
language that allows these problems to be prepared directly
and simply from a set ofordinary differential equations. The
program includes a basic set of functional blocks with which
the components of a continuous system may be represented.
and accepts application-oriented
statements for defining the
connections between these functional blocks. CSMP also
accepts FORTRAN statements. thereby allowing the user IO
readily handle nonlinear and time-variant problems of considerable complexity. Input and output are simplified by
means of user oriented control statements.
A fixed format is provided for printing (tabular format)and
print plotting (graphic format) at selected increments of the
independent variable. Through these features CSMP permiIs
the user to concentrate upon the phenomenon being simulated. rather than the mechanism for implementing the
simulation. For details. the publications system/360 Continuous System Modelling Program. Application Descrip
tion (HZO-0240-I) and users manual (H20-0367-2) may be
referred.

C
Ls

P
a.b.c

constants

of head, back and torso

(W/cm)

(kgficm)
spring constants of front axle standard and
relaxation suspensions (kgf/cm)
spring constants of front and rear tyres
(kgf/cm)
damping constants of head. back and torso
(kgflcmisec)
damping constants of thorax, diaphragm and
abdomen (kgf/cm/sec)
damping constants of pelvis and seat suspension (kgficmisec)
damping constant of tissue between torso and
back (kgCcm/sec)
damping constants ol the front and rear tyres
(kgf/cm/sec)
damping constant of front axle (kgf/cm/sec)
parameters of relaxation suspension seat/seat
and front axle as the case may be (dimensionless)
radius of gyration of the tractor (cm)
distances of rear tyre. front ty re and seat from
the center of gravity (cm)
rotation (pitch) of the chassis from its equilibrium position (rad)
displacements of head. back. torso. thorax.
diaphragm. abdomen and pelvis respectively
from their equilibrium positions (cm)
displacements of seat. relaxation seat suspension damper. chassis and relaxation front axle
suspension damper from their equilibrium positions (cm)
phase angle between the displacements applied
at the front and rear tyres (rad)
amplitude of the displacement applied at the
wheel contact points to the ground
circular frequency of forced vibration (rad/sec)
wavelength (in case of steady state response) of
road or field irregularity (cm).