Ramps Verification Method DV3 Proposed For NCC 2019

Supporting Document
NCC 2019
Ramps
Veriﬁcation Method
Overview
Overview: Proposed new Verification Method DV3 verification of ramps
This document provides a technical overview of the new ramp design Verification Method
(DV3), proposed in the public comment draft of National Construction Code (NCC) 2019
Volume One. It is predominantly developed from the following two documents prepared on
behalf of the ABCB:
• Desk Audit/Literature Review of Ramp Traversability by Wheelchairs and Mobility
Scooters (Quantification and Metrics). University of New South Wales. Sydney, New
South Wales.
• Verification Method Ramp Traversability. University of New South Wales. Sydney,
New South Wales.
Introduction
The NCC is a performance based code containing all Performance Requirements for the
construction of buildings. A building, plumbing or drainage solution will comply with the
NCC if it satisfies the Performance Requirements, which are the mandatory requirements
of the NCC.
The key to the performance based NCC is that there is no obligation to adopt any
particular material, component, design factor or construction method. This provides for a
choice of compliance pathways. The Performance Requirements can be met using either a
Performance Solution or using a Deemed-to-Satisfy (DTS) Solution. For more information
please visit the ABCB website.
Increasing the use of Performance

In 2013, an independent report highlighted that 70% of the $1.1 billion per annum
productivity gains delivered by ABCB reforms were derived from the current performance
based code. The report also identified substantial future gains if there is an increased use
of Performance Solutions.
Quantification of NCC Performance Requirements

Unquantified, qualitative Performance Requirements have always been recognised as a
barrier to the increased use of Performance Solutions. The ABCB has been tasked with
quantifying all of the NCC’s Performance Requirements and/or developing Verification
Methods to improve productivity and building outcomes. The ABCB has developed the
draft Verification Method, DV3, for compliance with DP2 in regards to ramp design.
© 2018 Commonwealth of Australia and States and Territories of Australia

The information in this document is intended to be used as guidance material only, and is in no way a substitute for the NCC and related State and
Territory legislation. The General Manager of the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) Office, as agent for the Commonwealth of Australia and
States and Territories of Australia, does not accept any liability howsoever arising from or connected to the use or reliance on any information in
this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law. The information in this publication is provided on the basis that all persons accessing the
information undertake responsibility for assessing the relevance and accuracy of the information to their particular circumstances.
Australian Building Codes Board Page 1

Contents
Introduction..............................................................................................................1
1 Building Regulation in Australia ..........................................................................5

1.1 Responsibilities for Regulation of Building in Australia ...............................5
1.2 Demonstrating Compliance with the NCC ..................................................5
1.3 Design and Approval ..................................................................................7
1.3.1 Design and Approval Process ........................................................7
1.3.2 Disability Discrimination Act – Disability (Access to Premise –
Buildings) 2010 ...........................................................................................7
1.3.3 Other Applicable Acts, Regulations and Design Responsibilities ...8
1.3.4 Additional Guidance ..................................................................... 10
1.4 Acronyms .................................................................................................. 11
2 Performance Based Design of Ramps............................................................... 12

2.1 Ramp Design ............................................................................................ 12
2.1.1 Gradient ....................................................................................... 12
2.1.2 Maximum Transition Gradient ...................................................... 13
2.1.3 Rolling Resistance ....................................................................... 13
2.1.4 Width – Manoeuvrability and Turning ........................................... 13
2.1.5 Ramp Length vs Gradient ............................................................ 14
2.1.6 Camber ........................................................................................ 14
2.1.7 Irregular Surface and Abutments ................................................. 14
2.1.8 Guides and Rails .......................................................................... 15
2.1.9 TGSIs ........................................................................................... 15
2.1.10 Consideration of Input Data and Requirements ........................... 15
2.2 Occupant Data and Characteristics .......................................................... 16
2.2.1 Persona Anthropometrics and Capabilities .................................. 17
2.2.2 Persona PWC and MWC Data ..................................................... 17
3 Using DV3 ............................................................................................................ 18

3.1 The Verification Method Process .............................................................. 18
3.2 Undertake a Performance Based Design Brief (PBDB) ............................ 19
3.2.1 Ramp Elements – Ramp Design .................................................. 19
3.3 Persona Anthropometrics and Capabilities ............................................... 20
3.4 Persona PWC and MWC Data.................................................................. 20

3.4.1 Persona Manual Wheelchair (MWC) ............................................ 21

3.4.2 Persona Power Wheelchair (PWC) .............................................. 21
3.5 Undertake the Modelling ........................................................................... 21
3.5.1 Manual Wheelchairs – Propulsion Assessment – Subroutine A ... 21
3.5.2 Powered Wheelchairs – Propulsion Assessment – Subroutine A 25
3.5.3 MWC and PWC – Stability – Subroutine B................................... 25
3.6 Compliance with DP2 ............................................................................... 27
3.7 Documentation.......................................................................................... 28
4 References ........................................................................................................... 29
5 Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 30
Appendix A Note on Appendices B – G ........................................................ 39
Appendix B Ramp safety design brief and boundary parameters.............. 40

B.1 User constraints – ramp design brief considerations ................................ 40
B.2 Ramp Element Design Parameters .......................................................... 41
B.2.1 Gradient ....................................................................................... 41
B.2.2 Transitions ................................................................................... 41
B.2.3 Guide Kerbs and Rails ................................................................. 42
B.2.4 Surface Rolling Resistance .......................................................... 42
B.2.5 Width and Manoeuvrability ........................................................... 42
B.2.6 Length .......................................................................................... 43
B.2.7 Threshold Ramps ......................................................................... 43
B.2.8 Camber ........................................................................................ 43
B.2.9 Irregular Surfaces and Abutments................................................ 43
Appendix C Input Data Sheets for Manual Chairs and Persona

Anthropometric Characteristics ................................................................................. 44
C.1 Wheelchair Use / Selection References ................................................... 44
C.2 Selection of Manual Wheelchair by User Requirements ........................... 45
C.2.1 Matching User Requirements Via A90 Wheelchair Comparison .. 45
C.2.2 Review of Candidate Wheelchair – Pushing Force ...................... 52
C.3 Evaluation of Candidate Wheelchair – User Based .................................. 53
C.4 Persona Evaluation for Candidate Mwc .................................................... 56
C.4.1 Spinal Cord Injury Level ............................................................... 56
C.4.2 Stature ......................................................................................... 57

C.4.3 Centre of Gravity .......................................................................... 57

C.5 Strength Characteristics ........................................................................... 59
C.6 Graphical Method ..................................................................................... 60
Appendix D Input Data Sheets for Power Wheelchairs and Persona

Anthropometric Characteristics ................................................................................. 61
D.1 Candidate Power Chair – Reasons for Selection and Data Sheet ............ 61
D.1.1 Description ................................................................................... 61
D.1.2 Evaluation of Physical Performance............................................. 61
D.1.3 User Criteria ................................................................................. 62
D.1.4 Technical Data ............................................................................. 64
Appendix E CAD Model for Graphical Static Stability and Tipping Check for
Both Manual and Power Wheelchairs ........................................................................ 68
Appendix F Calculation of Manual Wheelchair Wheel Forces .................... 69

F.1 Calculation of CoG of Power Wheelchair.................................................. 69
F.2 Calculation of CoG of MWC ...................................................................... 71
F.2.1 Determine Upright Position CoG .................................................. 71
F.2.2 Determine forward position .......................................................... 72
F.3 Calculation of Forces on Candidate MWC Wheels ................................... 73
F.3.1 Equation 1 .................................................................................... 73
F.3.2 Equation 2 .................................................................................... 73
Appendix G CAD Details of Candidate Wheelchairs .................................... 74

1 Building Regulation in Australia

1.1 Responsibilities for Regulation of Building in Australia
Under the Australian Constitution, State and Territory governments are responsible for
regulation of building and development / planning in their respective States and Territories.
The NCC is an initiative of the Council of Australian Governments and is produced and
maintained by the ABCB on behalf of the Australian Government and each State and
Territory government. The NCC provides a uniform set of technical provisions for the
design and construction of buildings and other structures, and plumbing and drainage
systems throughout Australia. It allows for variations in climate and geological or
geographic conditions.
The NCC is given legal effect by building regulatory legislation in each State and Territory.
This legislation consists of an Act of Parliament and subordinate legislation (e.g. Building
Regulations) which empowers the regulation of certain aspects of buildings and structures,
and contains the administrative provisions necessary to give effect to the legislation.
Each State's and Territory's legislation adopts the NCC subject to the variation or deletion
of some of its provisions, or the addition of extra provisions. These variations, deletions
and additions are generally contained in Appendices to the NCC. Notwithstanding this, any
provision of the NCC may be overridden by, or subject to, State or Territory legislation.
The NCC must therefore be read in conjunction with that legislation.
1.2 Demonstrating Compliance with the NCC
Compliance with the NCC is achieved by complying with the Governing Requirements of
the NCC and relevant Performance Requirements.
The General Requirements are a set of governing rules outlining how the NCC must be
used and the process that must be followed
The Performance Requirements prescribe the minimum necessary requirements for

buildings, building elements, and plumbing and drainage systems. They must be met to
demonstrate compliance with the NCC.
Three options are available to demonstrate compliance with the Performance

Requirements: a Performance Solution, a DTS Solution or a combination of a Performance
Solution and a DTS Solution as shown in Figure 1.1

Figure 1.1 Demonstrating Compliance with the NCC (from How to Comply with the NCC [4])
A Performance Solution, or a combination of Performance and DTS Solutions should be

assessed for compliance using one or a combination of the following, as appropriate:
• Evidence of Suitability
• Expert Judgement
• Verification Methods
• Comparison with DTS Provisions.

For further general information regarding demonstrating compliance with the NCC
reference should be made to the Australian Building Codes Board website
(www.abcb.gov.au).
Verification Method (VM) DV3 provides a calculation method to be used for the safe
design of ramps within buildings. VM DV3 represents the next logical step in the
development of the NCC to fully realise the benefits of performance based design and
facilitate the further development of the NCC to implement safe design along paths of
travels to and within a building.
The primary purpose of this document is to assist practitioners undertake or review

Performance Solutions for the design of ramps using the VM DV3.
1.3 Design and Approval
1.3.1 Design and Approval Process
The design and approval processes for VM DV3 is expected to be similar to that adopted
for other options used to demonstrate compliance of Performance Solutions including
criteria and procedures for registration of practitioners. Since the design approval process
for Performance Solutions currently varies significantly between the responsible State and
Territory Administrations it is likely to also be the case with VM DV3 and requirements
should be checked for the relevant jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding the quantified input and acceptance criteria, other qualitative aspects of
ramp design, which are discussed in this document, require assessment and analysis
throughout the design and approval process. The advice of an appropriately qualified
person should be sought to undertake this assessment and analysis where required, and
may be aided by the early and significant involvement from regulatory authorities, peer
reviewer(s) and / or a technical panel as appropriate to the State or Territory jurisdictions.
1.3.2 Disability Discrimination Act – Disability (Access to Premise – Buildings) 2010
For disability related issues, the NCC isn’t the only piece of legislation which is required to
be complied with for building. The Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992
(DDA) is another piece of legislation that must be complied with.
In regards to building, the DDA can be met by meeting the Disability (Access to Premise -
Buildings) Standards 2010 (Premises Standard). The aim of the Premises Standard is to
provide clarity in developing building solutions which are equitable and dignified (two of the
key aims of the DDA) for all occupants.
The Premises Standard is also a performance based standard which contains a copy of
the NCC disability access Performance Requirements and DTS Provisions.

Designers and practitioners should seek expert advice for project specific information on
the application of the Access to Premise standard, particularly when undertaking
Performance Solutions which related to the disability access provisions.
1.3.3 Other Applicable Acts, Regulations and Design Responsibilities
Notwithstanding the above, there are also many other pieces of legislation (both
Commonwealth, and State and Territory) which may impact on building approval and
design.
For instance, the NCC does not regulate matters such as the roles and responsibilities of
building practitioners. These fall under the jurisdiction of the States and Territories.
State and Territory building legislation is not nationally consistent in relation to these
matters with significant variations with respect to:
• registration of practitioners
• mandatory requirements for inspections during construction.
The design and approval of building solutions will need to consider these variations.
In addition to the relevant building legislation, Workplace Health and Safety (WHS)
legislation is also applicable which requires safe design principles to be applied.
A Code of Practice on the safe design of structures has been published by Safe Work
Australia (2012) which provides guidance to persons conducting a business or undertaking
work in regard to structures that will be used, or could reasonably be expected to be used,
as a workplace. It is prudent to apply these requirements generally to most building
classes since they represent a workplace for people undertaking building work,
maintenance, inspections at various times during the building life.
The Code of Practice defines safe design as:
“the integration of control measures early in the design process to eliminate or, if this is not
reasonably practicable, minimise risks to health and safety throughout the life of the
structure being designed”.
It indicates that safe design begins at the start of the design process when making
decisions about:
• the design and its intended purpose

• materials to be used
• possible methods of construction, maintenance, operation, demolition or dismantling
and disposal

• what legislation, codes of practice and standards need to be considered and

complied with.
The Code of Practice also provides clear guidance on who has health and safety duties in
relation to the design of structures and lists the following practitioners:
• architects, building designers, engineers, building surveyors, interior designers,

landscape architects, town planners and all other design practitioners contributing to,
or having overall responsibility for, any part of the design
• building service designers, engineering firms or others designing services that are
part of the structure such as ventilation, electrical systems and permanent fire
extinguisher installations
• contractors carrying out design work as part of their contribution to a project (for
example, an engineering contractor providing design, procurement and construction
management services)
• temporary works engineers, including those designing formwork, falsework,
scaffolding and sheet piling
• persons who specify how structural alteration, demolition or dismantling work is to be
carried out.
In addition, WHS legislation places the primary responsibility for safety during the
construction phase on the builder.
From the above it is clear that the design team in conjunction with owners / operators and
the builder have a responsibility to document designs, specify and implement procedures
that will minimise risks to health and safety throughout the life of the structure being
designed.
A key element of safe design is consultation to identify risks, develop practical mitigation
measures and to assign responsibilities to individuals / organisations for ensuring the
mitigation measures are satisfactorily implemented.
This approach should be undertaken whichever NCC compliance pathway is adopted.
Some matters specific to health and safety are summarised below, but this list is not
comprehensive.
• The NCC and associated referenced documents represent nationally recognised

minimum standards for health and safety for new building works.
• The NCC’s treatment of safety precautions during construction is very limited.
Additional precautions are required to address WHS requirements during
construction.

• Detailed design of features to optimise reliability and facilitate safe installation,

maintenance and inspection where practicable.
• Document procedures and allocate responsibilities for determining evidence of
suitability for all health and safety measures.
• Document procedures and allocate responsibilities for the verification and
commissioning of all health and safety measures.
• Provide details of health and safety measures within the building, evidence of
suitability, commissioning results and requirements for maintenance and inspection
to the owner as part of the building manual. (Note: Some State and Territory
legislation contains minimum requirements for inspection of fire safety measures)
• The building manual should also provide information on how to avoid compromising
fire safety through the life of a building (e.g. preventing disconnection of smoke
detectors or damage to fire resistant construction).
Some Health and Safety measures will be impacted by other legislation that may be
synergistic with the NCC requirements or potentially in conflict particularly in relation to
natural hazards these include:
• Planning / Development
• Conservation
• State Emergency risk management policies.
1.3.4 Additional Guidance
Additional reading on this topic can be found within the references located in Bibliography
in Section 5 of this document.

1.4 Acronyms
Acronym Meaning
ANSI American National Standards Institute
BCA Building Code of Australia
BMI Body Mass Index
CoG Centre of Gravity
DTS Deemed-to-Satisfy
DV3 Verification Method for Ramps
EBEP Enabling Built Environment Program
MWC Manual Wheelchair
MVC Maximal Voluntary Force
NCC National Construction Code
PBDB Performance Based Design Brief
PWC Powered Wheelchair
Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology
RESNA
Society of North America
SCI Spinal Cord Injury
SRP Seat Rest Position
TGSI Tactile Ground Surface Indicator
VM Verification Method
WC Wheelchair

2 Performance Based Design of Ramps

The challenge of the performance based design (PBD) of ramps or inclined surfaces in
continuous accessible paths of travel is that the solution can only define the ramp, its
approaches and geometry, surface characteristics and other associated safety features.
In developing a ramp which is safe to traverse, there are many other things to consider
which lie outside what the solution defines. Section 2 provides some discussion, and
findings, on some of the key considerations investigated in the development of DV3
Verification of Ramp Designs, including both the physical attributes of the ramp, as well as
information on how the users interact with ramps – a key consideration in making ramps
safe.
The information presented in this document is an extract from the following documents
prepared by the University of New South Wales’ Enabling Built Environment Program for
the ABCB:
1. Desk Audit/Literature Review of Ramp Traversability by Wheelchairs and Mobility

Scooters (Quantification and Metrics (2017); and
2. Verification Method Ramp Traversability (2017).
2.1 Ramp Design
The information presented in this section discusses the key considerations, limitations and
design constraints the VM places on ramps.
Also discussed are some additional features which designers should consider when
creating a safe ramp design. The information should not be considered as a complete list
of design considerations.
2.1.1 Gradient
One of the key aspects of safe ramp traversal is the gradient of the ramp. The gradient
has the following effect on users, particularly those in wheelchairs:
1. Steeper ramps require more force and effort to traverse the ramp.
2. Steeper ramps increase the risk of tipping due to shifting of the CoG in relation to
wheels.
The results of research undertaken have shown that no gradient steeper than 1:6 should
be considered in a Performance Solution as this is clearly beyond the physical capacity of
the “persona” to negotiate. Also check for stability limits including those set in the
“persona” MWC and PWC test reports under AS/NZS 3695.1 and 3695.2 in terms of
tipping and / or where braking capacity of wheelchair as stated in the associated test
report is exceeded. In this instance the associated gradient is also 1:6.

2.1.2 Maximum Transition Gradient
Transitions can pose issues for wheelchairs as MWC caster wheels can get caught up on
them, especially where a user has limited upper body strength – even with a power assist
mechanism. Also, PWC can sometimes be trapped because of a “bellying” effect or
snagging of a locking pin. Front and centre wheel drives can also be a problem (EBEP,
2017).
Therefore, no gradient greater than 1:8 should be considered in the case of a “V” shaped
transition except where it can be verified via test or evidence based calculation taking into
account the performance of the “persona” wheelchairs nominated in CAD Model in
Appendix E.
2.1.3 Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance can be one of the major impediments to wheelchairs traversing

surfaces, particularly ramps.
Rolling resistance is a measure of the retarding effect of ramp floor surface material at the
floor interface of the wheels. It is normally expressed in Newtons and is a measure of the
energy dissipated per unit of distance rolled. Energy is dissipated due to:
• friction at the contact interface

• elastic properties of materials
• roughness of rolling surface
• gradient.
Rolling resistance is a key piece of input data for DV3 as it can affect aspects such as:
• Traversability: high friction can slow down the traversal of the ramp, increasing the
risk of fatigue or even preventing the user from being able to create forward motion
up the ramp
• Stability: a higher friction can increase the risk of tipping when traversing a ramp.
See Ramp Safety in Section 2.4 of Appendix B for associated rolling resistance data.
2.1.4 Width – Manoeuvrability and Turning
Several studies have previously been undertaken to review the width, manoeuvrability and
turning requirements for wheelchairs on ramps and passageways. These studies have set
the DTS requirements within AS1428.1 to the 90th percentile wheelchair.
Therefore, given the in depth studies previously done, DTS Provisions shall apply.
However, because of PWC manoeuvring requirements and lack of upper body strength

and “movement” every Performance Solution must be checked for manoeuvrability as well
as access to doorways etc. See Appendix G for appropriate templates.
2.1.5 Ramp Length vs Gradient
One of the obvious opportunities for PBD identified from Section 2.3 of EBEP (2017) is to
decrease the length and increase the gradient (Cappozzo et al, 1991). This is based on
surveyed MVC of the users (score of 6 out of 11) (UNSW, 2017), which has been
translated into a user pushing force determined in the Input Data Sheets of Appendix C. In
order to take into account the fatigue effect of ramp traversal when adjusting ramp gradient
and length, the length of any sloping section of ramp shall allow for the “persona” user to
traverse the ramp in less than 17 seconds.
Changing the ramp length and gradient can be used to fine tune ramp designs to suit the
project specific circumstances. In order to have a higher gradient, a shorter ramp length
can be used as compensation and therefore take into account the fatigue of users when
traversing ramps. The NCC DTS Provisions already allows for this by specifying a
maximum ramp length of 9m for ramps at 1:14.
2.1.6 Camber
In allowing for a safe ramp design, camber plays a key consideration, as it can drastically
effect the stability of users traversing the ramp. Having too much camber can create
stability issues for users, particularly if they are required to make turns on those sections of
ramps.
Given the in-depth study of this issue by Holloway (2011) and the user response (MWC
and PWC), the DTS Provisions for camber are the most appropriate measure, and
appropriately allow for all wheelchair and non-wheelchair users adequately.
A lateral stability check is still required with each Performance Solution to ensure any
interaction between camber, gradient, particular around corners, does not present an
adverse outcome for the user. (See also the Cad Model in Appendix E). This is to take into
account the specific interaction between cambers, ramp gradient etc. for each individual
design scenario.
2.1.7 Irregular Surface and Abutments
Given the common problems that some users have with the height of abutments, profiles
of “V” shaped transitions, surface irregularities being as low as 1mm, each Performance
Solution shall demonstrate that the MWC persona and PWC persona can negotiate the
obstacle profiles in the DTS Provisions in start-up mode.

2.1.8 Guides and Rails
Guides and handrails are seen by wheelchair users to be critical elements as identified in
the survey undertaken by UNSW (2017).
When undertaking a Performance Solution with DV3 the provisions of AS1428.1, for
guides and handrails, shall apply as described. This was determined through agreement
within the user survey (UNSW, 2017) that they are the most appropriate solutions for use
with this method.
2.1.9 TGSIs
While TGSIs are considered a key feature for highlighting hazards within the built
environment for people with vision impairments, their interaction with wheelchairs,
particularly at the start-up of ramps, can pose problems.
Lee (2007) showed that TGSI’s were considered a benefit rather than an obstacle. The
extent to which they are generally installed in accordance with AS1428.1 and the resultant
reaction of the users challenged this finding. MWC users with limited upper body strength
(low percentage MVC) would catch their caster wheels on the truncations thus reducing
their start up pushing force.
Therefore due to this conflicting information, designers should consider how TGSIs are
installed on ramps, particularly at the start up locations of the ramps. This is not to say that
TGSIs should not be installed in accordance with the DTS Provisions, but that designers
should undertake an assessment of the impacts of TGSIs on all users.
In undertaking this assessment designers should investigate if there are alternative

placement options for TGSIs or alternative options which may provide a safer solution for
wheelchair users at start up, or if the TGSI requirements of the DTS Provisions are the
most appropriate.
Alert
If designers or practitioners determine that an alternate TGSI placement or method is a
better solution for their particular circumstances, a Performance Solution must be
undertaken for this alternative to the DTS Provisions. This Verification Method (DV3) does
not cover compliance with TGSI placement, and is merely highlighting that the placement
in the DTS Provisions may not be beneficial to all users traversing that ramp.
2.1.10 Consideration of Input Data and Requirements
The VM flow chart is shown in Figure 2.1. The contextual issues listed above are to form
the first part of the Data Analysis Input Information (refer Section 3.1.1).

Figure 2.1 DV3 Process flow chart
2.2 Occupant Data and Characteristics
As discussed previously, solutions for ramp design have traditionally only defined the
ramps and made no consideration for the users. While users have underpinned these safe
ramp designs, typically they have not been an explicit consideration in the design process.
However, DV3 provides a solution to the safe design of ramps, which allows designers to
optimise safe ramp solutions to meet project specific requirements by taking into
consideration the users and how they interact with the ramp.

The physical attributes of the ramp provide the baseline for determining its suitability for
users, however the occupant data and characteristics provide the key information of how
users interact with that ramp, which is implicit in determining if a ramp design is safe.
The investigations and research undertaken by UNSW’s Enabling a Built Environment

Program, reviewed relevant research literature to determine a set of occupant data and
characteristics which was policy neutral with the DTS Provisions. This dataset became the
“persona” data which can be used for the general population when conducting a
Performance Solution with DV3.
2.2.1 Persona Anthropometrics and Capabilities
The first aspect of “persona” data assembled was the user anthropometrics and
capabilities data set. This data is key in determining:
• CoG when assessing stability while traversing ramps

• MVC of occupants
• Reach capabilities (outside the scope of this method) etc.
The “persona” for the Performance Solution process represents the 90th percentile male
by stature and mass. For the full anthropometric data to form part of the VM requirements
see the input data Appendix C.
2.2.2 Persona PWC and MWC Data
It is here that the full information on the persona PWC and MWC is assembled as part of
the information required for use within DV3 Subroutines A and B.
2.2.2.1 Persona MWC
The persona MWC is based on a wheelchair model that has been tested using AS/NZS
3695.1 so that the necessary data associated with operating forces for dynamics analysis
and the optimal pushing force is already available. This data is set out in the input data in
Appendix C and Appendix D .
The MWC template is included in Appendix G for manoeuvrability checking.
2.2.2.2 Persona PWC
The persona PWC is based on a rear wheel drive model which has been tested under
AS/NZS 3695.2 so that all the data concerning dynamic and static stability as defined for a
Class B wheelchair is already available. This data is set out in the Input data in Appendix
C and the CAD model in Appendix E .

3 Using DV3
The following information provides guidance on how to implement a Performance Solution
using DV3.
Note:
This is not a detailed outline on how to undertake a Performance Solution using DV3 and
is only intended to provide guidance and background on the technical information
presented in DV3.
Designers should seek the advice of an appropriate authority in their jurisdiction for further
advice on the legal requirements when undertaking a Performance Solution using DV3.
3.1 The Verification Method Process
The following process diagram provides designers with a simplistic guide to the process
which should be involved in the technical assessments undertaken when using DV3.
Figure 3.1 DV3 Design Process

3.2 Undertake a Performance Based Design Brief (PBDB)
The design process needs to involve all the stakeholders. For Class 2 to 9 buildings, the
process should follow that set out in the "Development of Performance Solutions”
document. This document is based on the procedure outlined in the International Fire
Engineering Guidelines, and is used extensively in the development of fire engineered
Performance Solutions. All of the contextual issues surrounding the design of the ramp
should be incorporated into the PBDB. Some examples of these contextual issues are:
(a) Occupant profile for the building

(b) Suitability of persona data for the proposed building, or alternative data sources if
deemed more suitable
(c) Use and placement of TGSIs. Are they appropriate for all occupants, or could an
alternative, or alternate location, be more appropriate?
A typical Safe Movement Design Brief will be available in a future Handbook due to be
released when NCC 2019 is published. Alternatively, for more information refer to
"Development of Performance Solutions”.
3.2.1 Ramp Elements – Ramp Design
In order to undertake a Performance Solution using DV3 the following inputs are required
to be determined, and agreed upon, through the PBDB process:
• Type of ramp (as per AS1428.1 Definition)

• Gradient - no greater than 1:6 over a sloping ramp length of 6m 1
• Clear width - being continuous
• Surface covering (specification for ramp and approaches) - calculate from rolling
resistance data from Ramp safety in Appendix B
• Structure (e.g. reinforced concrete, timber, steel and concrete or steel frame and
deck)
• Profile of transitions (level to incline or incline to incline) – note gradient no greater
than 1:6 or 1:8 2.
• Landings provided at all changes in direction and configured to AS1428.1
• Manoeuvrability check on landings and doorway junctions
• Provision of kerbs along ramp edges coinciding with handrail positions
1 Coppozzo et al (1991) output – see Companion Report.

2 See User Based Survey Results in Recommendations Adopted by ABCB.

• No “flares” – ramps of all types can often introduce sudden transitions or “flares”
where the gradient can exceed 1 in 6.
• TGSI type and position for testing in start-up analysis.
The above information is critical to the development of any solution using DV3, and
therefore at each iteration of the design development, this information should be
considered and included as part of the design documentation.
Documentation:
Once the PBDB has settled on the above information, the information should then be
included in the data analysis input as part of the documentation.
3.3 Persona Anthropometrics and Capabilities
As discussed earlier, the persona, or occupant data is critical to designing ramps using
DV3. If the PBDB process determines that the persona data, suitable for the 90th
percentile occupant, is suitable for the proposed building, then the designer should
determine the appropriate data from Ramp safety in Appendix B and Appendix C and
document the use of DV3 with this data.
Alternatively, if the PBDB design process determines that an alternative persona data set
is appropriate (either anthropometric or capabilities based), then this information should be
clearly documented, including the source of the alternative occupant characteristics, and
included as part of the submission and review process as part of the PBD process.
Notes:
1. If an alternative data set is determined to be suitable for the proposed Performance
Solution, it is the responsibility of all involved in the PBDB to ensure that the new
occupant data (anthropometric and/or capabilities) is of suitable quality to be used.
Some potential sources of alternative data can be found in the references listed in
this document.
2. The positions of CoG for MWC and PWC personas are in development and will be
included in a future appendix of this document. The MWC is of special concern given
the concentration of mass in the abdomen in terms of the distribution of forces on the
wheels. Refer Appendices B, C, D, E and F for further information on personas.
3.4 Persona PWC and MWC Data
It is here that the full information on the persona PWC and MWC is assembled as part of
the information required for Subroutines A and B. Wheelchair templates are included for
manoeuvrability checking.

3.4.1 Persona Manual Wheelchair (MWC)
The persona MWC is based on a wheelchair model which has been tested under AS/NZS
3695.1 and ISO 7176 so that the necessary data associated with operating forces for
dynamics analysis and the optimal pushing force is already available. This data is set out
in Appendices C, E and F. The rolling resistance is available from Appendix B.
3.4.2 Persona Power Wheelchair (PWC)
The persona PWC is based on a rear wheel drive model which has been tested under ISO
7176 so that all the data concerning dynamic and static stability as defined for a Class B
wheelchair is already available. This data is set out in Appendices D and F.
Documentation
Transfer the persona MWC and PWC data used from Appendices B – G (as appropriate)
to the data analysis input documentation.
3.5 Undertake the Modelling
Once the PBDB process has provided the input information for the data analysis, then the
designer can undertake the suitable assessments as outlined in DV3.
There are three possible approaches available here:
1. Human modelling software such as SAMMIE and SANTOS

2. Other peer-reviewed biomechanical predictive models
3. Alternative propulsion models - simplified graphic approach
3.5.1 Manual Wheelchairs – Propulsion Assessment – Subroutine A
3.5.1.1 Human Modelling Software such as SAMMIE and SANTOS
Use human digital modelling software with suitable biomechanical functionality where the
mechanical model of the system for MWC is equivalent to that developed by Cappozzo et
al (1991). See section 3.5.1.2 for an explanation of the mechanical system.
The propulsion design procedure shall satisfy the following:
• Assess each ramp design and specification and establish the safe ramp length and
gradient for an ascent speed of not less than 0.1m/sec and a traversal interval of not
more than 17 seconds.
• The assessment process nominated by Cappozzo et al (1991) shall underpin the way
in which the selected “Human Modelling Software” is applied.

• The structure shall be based on a peer-reviewed case-study which must be fully

referenced and shall adopt the “mechanical system” set down in Figure 3.2 and the
process set down in Figure 3.3.
• The calculated pushing force shall not exceed that associated with the “Persona
Pushing Force”.
• All input data shall be extracted as directed in Section 2.
3.5.1.2 Other Peer-Reviewed Biomechanical Predictive Models
Other peer-reviewed biomechanical predictive models that adopt a functionality/

mechanical system and assessment process equal to that of Cappozzo et al (1991) are
acceptable to be used in the compliance of subroutine A from DV3.
The mechanical system is represented in Figure 3.2 below with an explanation of the
symbols.
Figure 3.2 Mechanical Model of the WC/User/Ramp System
Where:
mẌ = subject mass X acceleration of subject plus wheelchair CoG along direction
of ascent – inertia force
mg = subject mass X gravitational acceleration – gravitational force
H1, V1, H2 and V2 = horizontal and vertical component of reaction forces acting
on the rear and front wheels
X = horizontal axis / coordinates at the major or drive wheel for PWC
Y = vertical axis / coordinates at the major or drive wheel for PWC
α = ramp grade
The rolling resistance of the surface and resistance of wheel material/ tyre pressure needs
to be incorporated into the reaction forces H1/V1 and H2/V2.

Figure 3.3 Flow Chart of the WC/User/Ramp System – Cappozzo et al (1991) Experimental Validation
of Predictive Model.
A predictive model, validated by experiment, was based on the flow chart. The
mathematical model was developed with consideration of the pushing force f p , the inertia
force, mẌ, the gravitational force, mg, the friction forces (Cf1 “drive” wheel and Cf2
Casters), and wheel radii (r1 and r2) via the equation;
𝑐𝑐𝑓𝑓1 𝑐𝑐𝑓𝑓2
𝑓𝑓𝑝𝑝 − − − 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 − sin 𝛼𝛼 − 𝑚𝑚𝑥𝑥̈ = 0
𝑟𝑟1 𝑟𝑟2
The velocity and “movement / displacement” of the wheelchair were obtained via
integration of the above equation in the study. To achieve dynamic equilibrium of the
system the equations shown in Appendix 1 of the paper need to be satisfied.
f p must not exceed the Maximal Voluntary Contribution (MVC).
The assessment process nominated by Cappozzo et al (1991) shall underpin the peer-
reviewed predictive model selected for this type of assessment method. The calculated
pushing force shall not exceed that associated with the “Persona Pushing Force”.
The propulsion design procedure shall satisfy the following:

• Assess each ramp design and specification and establish the safe sloping ramp
length for an ascent speed of not less than 0.1m/sec and/or traversal interval of 17
seconds.
• The assessment process nominated by Cappozzo et al (1991) shall underpin the way
in which the selected “Biomechanical Predictive Model” is applied.
• The structure shall be based on a peer-reviewed case-study which must be fully
referenced and shall adopt the “mechanical system” set down in Figure 2 and the
process set down in Figure 3.
• The calculated pushing force shall not exceed that associated with the “Persona
Pushing Force”.
3.5.1.3 Alternative Propulsion Models - Simplified Graphic Approach
A potential alternative approach which may be adopted to substitute subroutine A from

DV3 is the simplified approach outlined in Section 5 of Appendix B.
The assessment process for this approach is a simplified version based directly on a
graphical method derived from Kim et al (2014). This study takes into account:
• Assess each ramp design and specification and establish the safe ramp length and
gradient derived by following the procedure and data in Appendix C.
Alert:
This alternative propulsion method does not form part of DV3. Any solution undertaken
using the method must comply with the requirements in their jurisdiction for undertaking a
full Performance Solution. Practitioners should consult with an appropriate authority for
further advice on the requirements if this method is to be used.
3.5.1.4 Camber check
The ramp is required to comply with AS1428.
Note:
Stability will be checked in accordance with section 3.5.3 to ensure that the interaction
between gradient and camber does not provide an adverse outcome.

3.5.1.5 Output from each iteration of Subroutine A for Manual Wheelchairs
The outcome from Section 3.5.1 shall establish sufficient evidence to demonstrate
compliance or otherwise of the Ramp Design and Specification with the requirements of
DP2 especially in terms of:
(a) Maximum gradient

(b) Length of traversal between landings
(c) Performance of Ramp Surface Covering especially in terms of the selected rolling
resistance.
Data Analysis:
Does the proposed ramp meet the requirements of 3.5.1?
If Answer is YES, then procced to subroutine B for stability check.
If Answer is NO, then proceed to next iteration of ramp design which will require
redesigning the ramp.
3.5.2 Powered Wheelchairs – Propulsion Assessment – Subroutine A
3.5.2.1 Traversability
The main issue with powered wheelchairs is associated with the core strength of the PWC
user. The “persona PWC” is supplied with the appropriate safety harness. PBD cannot
cater for scenarios where the user is adequately “belted in” each time they use the chair.
This issue are dealt with via the PWC lateral stability check in sub-routine B.
3.5.3 MWC and PWC – Stability – Subroutine B
This involves checking the “persona MWC and PWC” stability on the proposed design
gradient for each iteration. It ignores the upper body strength of the MWC user which is the
characteristic of the paraplegic user. It assumes that the body harness will be sufficient to
prevent a fall except when the wheelchair starts to tip.
3.5.3.1 Stability check for MWC and PWC
Check for occupant restraint using the disequality equation:
(𝑥𝑥 − 𝑥𝑥 ′ )
𝑋𝑋̈ = 𝑚𝑚 cos 𝛼𝛼 �(𝑦𝑦 − 𝑦𝑦 ′ ) − 𝑚𝑚 sin 𝛼𝛼

Where:
g = gravitational acceleration
α = gradient of ramp in degrees
Ẍ = acceleration of subject plus wheelchair CoG along direction of ascent
x, x’, y, y’ = co-ordinates of the COG.
and ramp gradient is less than that set out in Appendices A and C for braking in event of
failure of the PWC drive unit.
3.5.3.2 Lateral Stability check for PWC, Cambers and Corners:
In order to take into account the interaction of gradients, cambers and corners can have on
users traversing ramps, lateral stability is needed as part of the stability review. This is also
pertinent for PWC as DV3 cannot make allowance for users with low upper core strength
not using belts to secure them into the chair, as discussed in 3.5.2.1.
The lateral stability of PWC users can be assessed by either of the following:
1. Stability check using Appendix 2 of Cappozzo et al (1991) in the lateral position whilst
turning (3.5.3.2.1); or
2. Direct check with AS/NZS 3695.2 / ISO 7176 re the limits of braking should the PWC
drive system fail expressed as a maximum gradient. See Appendix D.
For all other circumstances the lateral stability check shall be carried out in accordance
with the procedure in 3.5.3.2.1.
3.5.3.2.1 Lateral stability check
Figure 3.4 Diagrammatic of PWC in lateral position (perpendicular to gradient)
Figure 3.4 relates to the check for lateral stability where the disequality condition below, as
shown in Appendix 2 of Cappozzo et al (1991) applies. This equation describes equilibrium

but it is set as the limit for lateral manoeuvring to cater for loose user restraint as described
in item 2 above.
The footprints are available in CAD format in Appendix G and the assessment may be
done graphically using the 3D CAD package in Appendix E.
1. Check for occupant restraint utilising the disequality equation:
(𝑥𝑥 − 𝑥𝑥 ′ )
𝑋𝑋̈ = 𝑚𝑚 cos 𝛼𝛼 �(𝑦𝑦 − 𝑦𝑦 ′ ) − 𝑚𝑚 sin 𝛼𝛼
Where:
g = gravitational acceleration
α = gradient of ramp in degrees
Ẍ = acceleration of subject plus wheelchair CoG along direction of
ascent
x and y are co-ordinates of the CoG.
and ramp gradient is less than that set out in Appendices A and C for braking in
event of failure of the PWC drive unit.
All input data shall be extracted as directed in Sections 2.1-2.10 and 3.2-3.3.
2. Also check maximum gradient for safe traversal as set out in Appendices B and C.
Note:
The camber of the ramp is still required to comply with AS 1428.
3.6 Compliance with DP2
The assessment process shall satisfy the following:
• Use all input data as directed in Sections 2.1-2.10 and 3.2-3.3.

• Use propulsion models for sub-routine A (Sections 3.5.1.1 or 3.5.1.2)
• Use stability (see 3.5.3.2) check to confirm manoeuvrability using the persona WC
templates from Appendices F and G.
• Graphical method using CAD details from Appendix D may also be used to assess
stability using the appropriate gradients.
• Assess the outcome of each iteration.
• If Answer is YES then proceed to “Ramp Complies with DP2.”
• If Answer is NO then proceed to next iteration which will require redesigning the
ramp.

Once determined that the assessment process satisfies the above, check that the
following have been derived in accordance with this VM:
1. Maximum safe gradient

2. Traversal distance between landings
3. Satisfactory performance of proposed ramp surface covering
4. Ramp is satisfactory for manoeuvring in accordance with AS1428
5. Incorporation of restraints from the Safe Movement Design Brief with a further check
against all data and requirements of Appendices B-G which shall include a
demonstration that the Persona WC’s can negotiate DTS permitted obstructions using
3D CAD Model from Appendix E or full calculation
6. Fully document the design and specification and demonstrate in detail compliance with
each part of DP2. This document shall be known as the VM Ramp Compliance Report
and shall contain the entire Performance Solution Assessment Documentation/
Calculations and outcomes (Items 1-4).
3.7 Documentation
Fully document the design and specification and demonstrate in detail compliance with
each part of DP2. This document shall be known as the VM Ramp Compliance Report and
shall contain the entire Performance Solution Assessment Documentation/ Calculations
and outcomes (Items 1-4).

4 References
The following documents are referred to in this report:
• Australian Building Codes Board, 2018. National Construction Code: Volume One
Public Comment Draft. Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.
• Cappozzo, A., Felici, F., Figura, F., Marchetti, M. and Ricci, B., 1991. Prediction of
ramp traversability for wheelchair dependent individuals. Spinal Cord, 29(7), pp.470-
478.
• Enabling Built Environment Program, 2017. Desk Audit/Literature Review of Ramp
Traversability by Wheelchairs and Mobility Scooters (Quantification and Metrics).
University of New South Wales. Sydney, New South Wales.
• Enabling Built Environment Program, 2018. Verification Method Ramp Traversability.
University of New South Wales. Sydney, New South Wales.
• Holloway, C.S., 2011. The effect of footway crossfall gradient on wheelchair
accessibility (Doctoral dissertation, UCL (University College London)).
• International Standards Organisation, 2014. ISO 7176-1:2014 Wheelchairs – Part 1L
Determination of static stability.
• Kim, K., Payne, K., Oh, S. and Hori, Y., 2014, March. One-handed propulsion control
of power-assisted wheelchair with advanced turning mode. In Advanced Motion
Control (AMC), 2014 IEEE 13th International Workshop on (pp. 633-638). IEEE.
• Lee, H., 2007. Effects of TGSI on ramp approach – mixed methods study.
• Safe Work Australia, 2012. Safe Design of Structures - Code of Practice, Safe Work
Australia. Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.
• Standards Australia Limited/ Standards New Zealand, 2011. AS/NZS 3695.1:2011
Wheelchairs – Requirements and test methods for manual wheelchairs. Sydney,
New South Wales.
• Standards Australia Limited/ Standards New Zealand, 2011. AS/NZS 3695.2:2013
Wheelchairs – Requirements and test methods for powered wheelchairs (including
mobility scooters). Sydney, New South Wales.

5 Bibliography
Ackermann, M., Leonardi, F., Costa, H., & Fleury, A. (2014). Modelling and Optimal
Control Formulation for Manual Wheelchair Locomotion: the Influence of Mass and Slope
on Performance. Paper presented at the 2014 5th IEEE RAS & EMBS International
Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob), Sao Paolo, Brazil.
Al Mamun, S., Suzuki, R., Lam, A., Koboyashi, Y., & Kuno, Y. (2016). Terrain Recognition
for Smart Wheelchair. In D.-S. Huang, K. Han, & A. Hussain (Eds.), Intelligent Computing
Methodologies. ICIC 2016Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 9773, pp. 461-470):
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42297-8_43
Algood, S., Cooper, R., Fitzgerald, S., Cooper, R., & Boninger, M. (2005). Effect of a
Pushrim-activated Power Assist Wheelchair on the Functional Capabilities of Persons with
Tetraplegia. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86, 380-386.
Bascou, J., Sauret, C., Pillet, H., Vaslin, P., Thoreux, P., & Lavaste, F. (2012). A Method
for the Field Assessment of Rolling Resistance Properties of Manual Wheelchairs.
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 16(4), 381-391.
Becker, M., & da Sa, C. (1999). Manual wheelchairs propulsion = Part 1: Biomechanic
analysis and kinetic modelling. Paper presented at the COBEM 99 15th Congress of
Mechanical Engineering, Sao Paulo.
Becker, M., & Dedini, F. (1999, 22-26 November). Ergonomics applied to the design of
vehicles for disabled. Paper presented at the COBEM 15th Congress of Mechanical
Engineering, Sao Paulo.
Bennett, S., Kirby, R., & MacDonald, B. (2009). Wheelchair accessibility: Descriptive
survey of curb ramps in an urban area. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology,
4(1), 7.
Boucher, P., Atrash, A., Kelouwani, S., Honore, W., Nguyen, H., Villemure, J., Pineau, J.
(2013). Design and Validation of an Intelligent Wheelchair Towards a Clinically functional
Outcome. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 10(58).
Caple, D., Morris, N., Oakman, J., & Atherton, M. (2014). Research on Spatial Dimensions
for Occupied Manual and Powered Wheelchairs Project. Final Report Retrieved from
Canberra, Australia:
Cappozzo, A., Felici, F., Figura, F., Marchetti, M., & Ricci, B. (1991). Prediction of Ramp
Traversability for Wheelchair Dependent Individuals. Paraplegia, 29, 470-478.
Chenier, F., Gagnon, D., Blouin, M., & Aissaoui, R. (2016). A simplified upper body model
to improve the external validity of wheelchair simulators. IEEE/ASME Transactions in
Mechatronics. doi:10.1109/TMECH.2016.2527240

Chesney, D., & Axelson, P. (1996). Preliminary Test Method for the Determination of
Surface Firmness. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, 4(3), 182-187.
Chien, C., Huang, T., Liao, T., Kuo, T., & Lee, T. (2014). Design and development of solar
power-assisted manual/electric wheelchair. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and
Development, 51(9), 1411 -1426.
Choi, Y., Lee, H., Myoung, H., & Kwon, O. (2015). Effects of ramp slope on physiological
characteristic and performance time of healthy adults propelling and pushing wheelchairs.
Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 27, 3.
Chow, J., & Levy, C. (2010). Wheelchair propulsion biomechanics and wheelers’ quality of
life: an exploratory review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology.
doi:10.3109/17483107.2010.595290
Chow, J., Millikan, T., Carlton, L., Chae, W., Lim, Y., & Morse, M. (2009). Kinematic and
Electromyographic Analysis of Wheelchair Propulsion on Ramps of Different Slopes for
Young Men with Paraplegia. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 90, 271-
278.
Cooper, R., Fitzgerald, S., Boninger, M., Prins, K., Rentschler, A., Arva, J., & O’Connor, T.
(2001). Evaluation of a Pushrim-Activated, Power Assisted Wheelchair. Archives of
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82, 702-708
Cooper, R., Thorman, T., Cooper, R., Dvorznak, M., Fitzgerald, S., Ammer, W., Boninger,
M. (2002). Driving Characteristics of Electric-Powered Wheelchair Users: How Far, Fast
and Often Do People Drive? Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, 250-
255.
Corfman, T., Cooper, R., Fitzgerald, S., & Cooper, R. (2003). Tips and Falls During
Electric-Powered Wheelchair Driving: Effects of Seatbelt Use, Leg rests and Driving
Speed. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, 1797-1802.
Cowan, R., Boninger, M., Sawatzky, B., Mazoyer, B., & Cooper, R. (2008). Preliminary
Outcomes of the SmartWheel Users’ Group Database: A Proposed Framework for
Clinicians to Objectively Evaluate Manual Wheelchair Propulsion. Archives of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89, 260-268.
Curtis, K., Roach, K., Applegate, E., Amar, T., Benbow, C., Genecco, T., & Gualano J.
(1995). Reliability and validity of Wheelchair User’s Shoulder Pain Index (WUSPI).
Paraplegia, 33, 595-601.
Davis, J., Whipp, B., Lamarra, N., Huntsman, J., Frank, M., & Wasserman, K. (1982).
Effect of ramp slope on determination of aerobic parameters for the ramp exercise.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 14(5), 339-343.

DiGiovine, C., Darragh, A., Berner, T., & Duncan, T. (2015, June 10-14). The Effect of
Whole Body Vibration on Power Wheelchair Mobility: A focus group. Paper presented at
the RESNA 2015 Annual Conference Denver, Colorado.
Dubowsky, S., Sisto, S., & Langrana, N. (2009). Comparison of Kinematics, Kinetics and
EMG Throughout Wheelchair Propulsion in Able-Bodied and Persons with Paraplegia: An
Integrative Approach. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 131, 021015-021011 to
021015-021018.
Frank, A., Neophytou, C., Frank, J., & de Souza, L. (2010). Electric-powered
indoor/outdoor wheelchairs (EPIOC’s): users’ views of influence on family, friends and
carers. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 5(5), 327-338.
doi:10.3109/17483101003746352
Gavin-Dreschnack, D., Nelson, A., Fitzgerald, S., Harrow, J., Sanchez-Anguiano, A.,
Ahmed, S., & Powell-Cope, G. (2005). Wheelchair-related Falls: Current Evidence and
Directions for Improved Quality Care. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 20(2), 119-127.
Gomi, T., & Griffith, A. (1998). Developing Intelligent Wheelchairs for the Handicapped.
Retrieved from Canada: wmich.edu
Gooch, S., Woodfield, T., Hollingsworth, L., Rothwell, A., AJ, M., & Yao, F. (2008). On the
design of manual wheelchairs for people with spinal cord injuries. Paper presented at the
International Design Conference-Design 2008, Dubrovnik-Croatia
Grant, M. (2003). Space Requirements for Wheeled Mobility. Paper presented at the An
International Workshop. Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access, University
at Buffalo, SUNY, University Inn, Amherst New York.
Grant, M., Harrison, C., & Conway, B. (2004, March 22-24). Wheelchair Simulation. Paper
presented at the 2nd Cambridge Workshop on Universal Access and Assistive
Technology(CWUAAT), Fitzwilliam College, University of Cambridge, UK.
Gray, D., Hollingsworth, H., Stark, S., & Morgan, K. (2006). Participation Survey/Mobility:
Psychometric Properties of a Measure of Participation for People with Mobility
Impairments and Limitations. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 87, 189-
197.
Han, C. (2000). Computer Models and Methods for a Disabled Access Analysis Design
Environment. (PhD Dissertation), Stanford University, Stanford, USA.
Han, C., Kunz, J., & Law, K. (2002). Compliance Analysis for Disabled Access. In M. I. WJ
& E. AK (Eds.), Advances in Digital Government, Technology, Human Factors and Policy
(pp. 149-163). Boston, US: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Han, C., Law, K., Latombe, J., & Kunz, J. (2002). A performance-based approach to
wheelchair accessible route analysis Advanced Engineering Informatics (Vol. 16, pp. 53-
71).
Harrison, C., Dall, P., Grant, P., Granat, M., Maver, T., & Conway, B. (2000, September
23-25). Development of a wheelchair virtual reality platform for use in evaluating
wheelchair access. Paper presented at the ICDVRAT 2000 3rd International Conference
on Disability, Virtual Reality and Associated Technology, Alghero, Italy.
Hoenig, H., Giacobbi, P., & Levy, C. (2007). Methodological challenges confronting
researchers of wheeled mobility aids and other assistive technologies. Disability and
Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2(3), 159-168.
Hollingsworth, L. (2010). Understanding and Modelling Manual Wheelchair Propulsion and

Strength Characteristics in People with C5-C7 Tetraplegia. (PhD Thesis), University of
Canterbury, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Howarth, S., Pronovost, L., Polgar, J., Dickerson, C., & Callaghan, J. (2010). Use of a
geared wheelchair to reduce propulsive muscular demand during ramp ascent: Analysis of
muscle activation and kinematics. Clinical Biomechanics, 25, 21-28.
Hurd, W., Morrow, M., Kaufman, K., & An, K.-N. (2008). Biomechanic Evaluation of Upper
Extremity Symmetry During Manual Wheelchair Propulsion Over Varied Terrain. Archives
of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89, 1996-2002.
Hurd, W., Morrow, M., Kaufman, K., & An, K.-N. (2009). Wheelchair propulsion demands
during outdoor community ambulation. Electromyography and Kinesology, 19, 942-947.
International, M. (2014). Consultation Report: Review of access for people with disabilities.
Retrieved from New Zealand:
Karmakar, A., Collins, D., Wichman, T., Franklin, A., Fitzgerald, S., Dicianno, B., Cooper,
R. (2009). Prosthesis and wheelchair use in veterans with lower limb amputation. Journal
of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 46(5), 567-576.
Karmarkar, A. M., Dicianno, B. E., Cooper, R., Collins, D. M., Matthews, J. T., Koontz, A.,
Cooper, R. A. (2011). Demographic Profile of Older Adults Using Wheeled Mobility
Devices. Journal of Aging Research, 2011. doi:10.4061/2011/560358
Kauzlarich, J., & Thacker, J. (1985). Wheelchair tire rolling resistance and fatigue.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 22, 25-41.
Kim, C. S., Lee, D., Kwon, S., & Chung, M. K. (2014). Effects of ramp slope, ramp height
and users' pushing force on performance, muscular activity and subjective ratings during
wheelchair driving on a ramp. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 44, 636-646.

Kirby, R., Swuste, J., Dupuis, D., MacLeod, D., & Monroe, R. (2002). The Wheelchair
Skills Test: A Pilot Study of a New Outcome Measure. Archives of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, 83, 10-18.
Koontz, A., Cooper, R., Boninger, M., Yang, Y., Impink, B., & vander Woude, L. (2005). A
kinetic analysis of manual wheelchair propulsion during start-up on select indoor and
outdoor surfaces. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 42(4), 447-458.
Kotajarvi, B., Subick, M., An, K., Zhao, KD, Kaufman, K., & Basford, J. (2004). The effect
of seat position on wheelchair propulsion biomechanics. Journal of Rehabilitation
Research and Development, 41(3B), 403-414.
Kulig, K., Newsam, C., Mulroy, S., Rao, S., Gromley, J., Bontrager, E., & Perry, J. (2001).
The effect of level of spinal cord injury on shoulder joint kinetics during manual wheelchair
propulsion. Clinical Biomechanics, 16, 744-751.
Lachance, C. C., Jurkowski, M. P., Dymarz, A. C., Robinovitch, S. N., Feldman, F., Laing,
A. C., & Mackey, D. C. (2017). Compliant flooring to prevent fall-related injuries in older
adults: A scoping review of biomechanical efficacy, clinical effectiveness, cost-
effectiveness, and workplace safety. PLoS ONE, 12(2). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0171652
Lee, H. (2007). Effects of detectable warnings on individuals with mobility impairments.

(Degree of Education Dissertation), Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, USA.
(889)
Lemaire, E., O’Neill, P., Desrosiers, M., & Robertson, G. (2010). Wheelchair Ramp
Navigation in Snow and Ice-Grit Conditions. Archives of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, 91(10), 1516-1523.
Lemay, V., Routhier, F., Noreau, L., Phang, S., & Ginis, K. M. (2012). Relationships
between wheelchair skills, wheelchair mobility and level of injury in individuals with spinal
cord injury. Spinal Cord, 50, 37–41.
Lin, C.-J., Lim, P.-C., Guo, L.-Y., & Su, F.-C. (2011). Prediction of applied forces in
handrim wheelchair propulsion. Journal of Biomechanics, 44, 455-460.
Matthews, M., & Vujakovic, P. (1995). Private worlds and public places: mapping the
environmental values of wheelchair users. Environment and Planning A, 27, 1069-1083.
May, L., Butt, C., Minor, L., Kolbinson, K., & Tulloch, K. (2003). Measurement Reliability of
Functional Tasks for Persons Who Self-Propel a Manual Wheelchair. Archives of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, 578-583.
Mazo, M. (2001). An Integral System for Assisted Mobility. IEEE Robotics and Automation
Magazine, 8, 46-56.

Middleton, J., Harvey, L., Batty, J., Cameron, I., Quirk, R., & Winstanley, J. (2006). Five
additional mobility and locomotor items to improve responsiveness of the FIM in
wheelchair-dependent individuals with spinal cord injury, Spinal Cord, Vol. 44, pp. 495-
504. Spinal Cord, 44, 495-504.
Minns, J., & Tracey, S. (2011). Wheelchair pushing forces over a vinyl and a new shock
absorbing flooring. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(1), 41-43.
Montella, C., Pollock, M., Schwesinger, D., & Spelzer, J. (2012, October 12). Stochastic
Classification of Urban Terrain for Smart Wheelchair Navigation. Paper presented at the
IROS 2012 Workshop on Progress, Challenges and Future Perspectives in Navigation and
Manipulation Assistance for Robotic Wheelchairs, Vila Moura, Portugal.
Moody, L., Woodcock, A., Heelis, M., Chichi, C., Fielden, S., & Stefanov, D. (2012).
Improving wheelchair prescription: an analysis of user needs and existing tools,. Work,
41(Supplement 1), 1980-1984. doi:10.3233/WOR-2012-0418-1980
Morrow, M., Hurd, W., Kaufman, K., & An, K. (2010). Shoulder demands in manual
wheelchair users across a spectrum of activities. Journal of Electromyography and
Kinesiology, 20(1), 61-67. doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2009.02.001
Mortensen, W., Miller, W., Boily, J., Steele, B., Crawford, E., & Desharnais, G. (2005).
Perceptions of Power Mobility Use and safety within Residential Facilities. Canadian
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72(3), 142-152.
Mulroy, S., Farrokhi, S., Newsam, C., & Perry, J. (2004). Effect of Spinal Cord Injury Level
on the Activity of Shoulder Muscles During Wheelchair Propulsion; An Electromyographic
Study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85, 925-934.
Nakajima, S. (2014). Improved Gait Algorithm and Mobility Performance of RT Mover Type
Personal Mobility Vehicle. IEEE Access, 2, 26 - 39. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2013.2296557
Nejati, M., & Argall, B. D. (2016, August 26-31). Automated Incline Detection for Assistive
Powered Wheelchairs. Paper presented at the 25th IEEE International Symposium on
Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Columbia University, New York.
Newsam, C., Rao, S., Gronley, J., Bontrager, E., & Perry, J. (1999). Three dimensional
upper extremity motion during manual wheelchair propulsion in men with different levels of
spinal cord injury. Gait and Posture, 10, 223-232.
Nightingale, T. (2015). Measurement of physical activity and its role in the maintenance of
health in wheelchair users. (PhD Thesis), University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Otami, R., Moussaoui, A., & Priski, A. (2009). A new approach to indoor accessibility.
International Journal of Smart Home, 3(4), 1-14.

Pan, X., Han, C., & Law, K. (2010). Using Motion-Planning to Determine the Existence of
an Accessible Route in a CAD Environment. Assistive Technology, 22(1), 32-45.
doi:10.1080/10400430903520249
Qi, L., Ferguson-Pel, M., Salimi, Z., Haennel, R., & Ramadi, A. (2015). Wheelchair users'
perceived exertion during typical mobility activities. Spinal Cord, 53, 687–691.
Rankin, J., Richter, W., & Neptune, R. (2011). Individual muscle contributions to push and
recovery tasks during wheelchair propulsion. Journal of Biomechanics, 44, 1246-1252.
RESNA: Association for the Advancement of Rehabilitation Technology. (2001, June 22-
26). Proceedings of the RESNA 2001 Annual Conference: The AT Odyssey Continues,
Reno, Nevada.
Rimmer, J., Riley, B., Wang, E., Rauworth, A., & Jurkowski, J. (2004). Physical Activity
Participation Among Persons with Disabilities. American Journal of Preventative Medicine,
26(5), 419-425.
Routhier, F., Vincent, C., Desrosiers, J., & Nadeau, S. (2003). Mobility of wheelchair users:
a proposed performance assessment framework. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(1), 19-
34.
Sabick, M., Kotajarvi, B., & An, K. (2004). A New Method to Quantify Demand on the
Upper Extremity During Wheelchair Propulsion. Archives of Physical Medicine and
Samuelsson, K., Tropp, H., & Gerdle, B. (2004). Shoulder pain and its consequences in
paraplegic spinal cord-injured, wheelchair users. Spinal Cord, 42, 41-46.
Sauret, C., Bascou, J., Pillet, H., Lavaste, F., & Vaslin, P. (2010). Repeatability of
wheelchair deceleration tests using a 3-D accelerometer. Computer Methods in
Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 13(Supplement 1), 137-138.
Sauret, C., Bascou, J., Remy, N., Pillet, H., Vaslin, P., & Lavaste, F. (2012). Assessment
of field rolling resistance of manual wheelchairs. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and
Development, 49(1), 63-74.
Simpson, R. (2005). Smart wheelchairs: A literature review. Journal of Rehabilitation

Research and Design, 42(4), 423-436.
Spoden, T., Yauk, B., Shangle, M., Shinatrakool, V., & Volkens, J. (2006). Self-Guided
Wheelchair May 07-15 Design Report, Version 2. Retrieved from
Stanley, R., Stafford, D., Rasch, E., & Rodgers, M. (2003). Development of a functional
assessment measure for manual wheelchair users. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and
Development, 40(4), 301-307.

Stefanov, D., Avtanski, A., Shapcott, N., Dryer, P., Fielden, S., Heelis, M., Moody, L.
(2014, June 11-12). A novel system for wheelchair stability assessment design and initial
results. Paper presented at the 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Medical
Measurements and Applications (MeMeA).
Steinfeld, E., Maisel, J., Feathers, D., & D’Souza, C. (2010). Anthropometry and Standards
for Wheeled Mobility: An International Comparison. Assistive technology: the official
journal of RESNA, March. doi:10.1080/10400430903520280
Sweeney, G., Harrison, R., & Clarke, A. (2009). Portable ramps for wheelchair users – an
appraisal. International disability studies, 11(2), 68-70. doi:10.3109/03790798909166390
Tolerico, M., Ding, D., Cooper, R., Spaeth, D., Fitzgerald, S., Cooper, R., Bodinger, M.
(2007). Assessing mobility characteristics and activity levels of manual wheelchair users.
Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 44(4), 561-572.
Van der Ploeg, H., Streppel, K., van der Beek, A., van der Woude, L., Vollenbroek-Hutten,
M., & van Mechelen, W. (2007). The Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical
Disabilities: Test-Retest Reliability and Comparison with an Accelerometer. Journal of
Physical Activity and Health, 4, 96-100.
Van der Woude, L., Veeger, H., Dallmeijer, A., Janssen, T., & Rozendaal, L. (2001).
Biomechanics and physiology in active manual wheelchair propulsion. Medical
Engineering and Physics, 23, 713-733.
Vander Wiel, J., Harris, B., Jackson, C., & Reese, N. (2016, July 10-14). Exploring the
Relationship of Rolling Resistance and Misalignment Angle in Wheelchair Rear Wheels,.
Paper presented at the RESNA/NCART Conference 2016, Arlington, USA.
Vanderthommen, M., Francaux, M., Colinet, C., Lehance, C., Lhermerout, C., Crielaard, J.,
& Theisen, D. (2002). A multistage field test of wheelchair users for evaluation of fitness
and prediction of peak oxygen consumption. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and
Development, 39(6), 685-692.
Vasquez, D., Rios-Martinez, J., Escobedo, A., & Spalanzani, A. (2012). Human Aware
Navigation for Assistive Robotics. Paper presented at the ISER - 13th International
Symposium on Experimental Robotics - 2012 Quebec, Canada.
Vredenburgh, A. G., Hedge, A., Zackowitz, I. B., & Welner, J. M. (2009). Evaluation of
Wheelchair Users' Perceived Sidewalk and Ramp Slope: Effort and Accessibility. Journal
of Architectural and Planning Research, 26(2), 145-158.
Wallman, C., & Astrom, H. (2001). Friction measurement methods and the correlation
between road friction and traffic safety, A literature review, (Vol. 911A): Swedish National
Road and Transport Research Institute.

Wellman, P., Krovi, V., Kumar, V., & Harwin, W. (1995). Design of a Wheelchair with Legs
for People with Motor Disabilities. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitative Engineering, 3(4),
343-353.
Xiang, H., Chany, A., & Smith, G. (2006). Wheelchair related injuries treated in US
emergency departments. Injury Prevention, 12, 8-11. doi:10.1136/ip.2005.010033
Yang, Y., Koontz, A., Triolo, R., Mercer, J., & Boninger, M. (2006). Surface
Electromyography of trunk muscles during wheelchair propulsion. Clinical Biomechanics,
21, 1032-1041.
Yao, F. (2007). Measurement and Modelling of Wheelchair Propulsion Ability for People
With Spinal Cord Injury. (Masters Thesis), University of Canterbury, Canterbury, New
Zealand.

Appendix A Note on Appendices B – G
Note:
Appendices B to G are an extract from the University of New South Wales Enabling Built
Environment Program (EBEP) Research Report:
Verification Method Ramp Traversability (Quantification and Metrics) (2017).
This report was the second stage of research undertaken by the EBEP on quantification of
ramps on behalf of the ABCB.

Appendix B Ramp safety design brief and boundary

parameters
B.1 User constraints – ramp design brief considerations
After developing the Verification Method as the main thrust of the stage two study findings
from the expert user survey that still apply are:
Table 5.1 Ramp Considerations Review
Ramp User Literature Review Comments

Characteristic
1. Gradient ≤1:8 ≤ 1:6 – 1:8 Some of the
(Cappozzo et respondents were
al,1991; Chow et al, happy with 1:6 but
2009; and Howarth et this gradient
al, 2010 and Filess- compromises PWC
Douer et al, 2010; traversal at
Frost et al, 2015) transitions
2. Transitions ≤1:8 ≤ 1:4 Both agree re flares
(Corfman et al, 2003; on kerb ramps. V
Xiang et al,2010; shaped transitions
Kilkens et al, 2003; not really covered in
Cassell et al, 2011; literature
Moody et al, 2013
and Stefanov et al,
2014)
3. Guide kerbs and Required (see 2.4.3- AS1428.1 Clause 10 Total agreement
Rails EBEP 2017 for
PWC and MWC
reasons)
4. Surface Firmness for traction Lack of suitable test. Cappozzo et al
especially start up Possibility with static (1991) ignored the
and anti-slip; carpet test by Ikuko and rolling resistance of
does not appear to Toshiruro (2001); surface materials
cause much of a Converting PTV to because of the
problem. coeft. of friction impact of the ramp
shows only 0.45 in gradient. Simplify
NCC as compared the provision of
with 0.6 for carpet – Rolling Resistance
see also section 2.3.3 as per Sauret et al
of Report including (2012).
Koontz et al (2005),
Sauret et al (2010)
and Hurd et al (2009)
in terms of additional
MVC.

Ramp User Literature Review Comments

Characteristic
5. Width AS 1428.1 seen as Especially for PWC The MWC footprint
minimum because of extra and manoeuvring
(regulated). But still manoeuvring space patterns will still be
insufficient at (Kloosterman et al, those of the A-90
doorways. 2013; Formiatti et al, model. The PWC
2013; Steinfeld et al, foot print will be that
2010) of the candidate
PWC.
6. Short and Steep Concerned with No specific studies Users had problems
ramps impact on stability. even that of Sweeney with 1:6 transitions
Mainly associated et al (2009). for both MWC and
with portable ramps Mentioned a max of PWC. Reflect in
and streets. 1:6 for PWC and that boundary design
results could be requirements.
transferred to all
ramp types.
7. Camber Only mentioned by See There was total
4 out 11 recommendations of agreement between
respondents, but Holloway (2011) the two. Select 1:50
still significant. where 1:50 as the design
Concerns with PWC nominated as the boundary crossfall.
because no strength safe dimension.
in trunk to hold Holloway’s study was
themselves in and extensive over four
MWC because of years (PhD thesis).
uneven stroking
required to maintain
stability.
B.2 Ramp Element Design Parameters
The parameters are based directly on the research and the findings from the Stage 1
Report (Ref. Section 3.2.2). These parameters are to be re-assessed as part of the Safety
Design Brief process.
B.2.1 Gradient
The maximum permitted gradient for ramps is 1:8. 1:6 may be considered for ramps but
must be completely assessed in accordance with the Cappozzo Model.
B.2.2 Transitions
1:6 “V” shaped transitions are not permitted in any instance.

B.2.3 Guide Kerbs and Rails
Comply with AS1428.1 Clause 10.
B.2.4 Surface Rolling Resistance
Note: Allow for drag factor due to gradient – see Cappozzo equations
B.2.4.1 Manual Wheelchairs
Taken from Table 3 of Sauret et al (2014) with a level of significance for the rolling
resistance (RR values) being significantly higher (p<.001) on carpet compared to hard
smooth surfaces such as ceramic tiles the RR values are:
Caster with a diameter of 101mm and track width of 35mm solid:
Carpet low pile: 3.54 X 10-3 Carpet with high pile: 4.5 X 10-3
Hard and Smooth: 0.36 X 10-3
Rear pneumatic wheel with a pressure of 448 kPa, diameter of 610mm and track width of
35mm:
Carpet low pile: 4.84 X 10-3 Carpet with high pile: 6.07 X 10-3
Hard and smooth: 1.28 X 10-3
B.2.4.2 Power Wheelchair
Not required for traversing analysis as the only checks required are for stability.
B.2.5 Width and Manoeuvrability
Check for manoeuvrability as follows:
B.2.5.1 Manual Wheelchairs
Carry out in accordance with AS1428 utilising the A-90 footprint. Comply with minimum of
AS1428.1 and increase doorways to suit footprint plus 150mm.
B.2.5.2 Powered Wheelchairs
Carry out utilising the candidate power wheelchair footprint of 1746mm long by 800mm
wide. Comply with minimum of AS1428.1 and increase doorways to suit footprint plus
150mm.

B.2.6 Length
The traversal interval of any section of ramp shall not exceed 17 seconds and the velocity
shall be greater than 0.02m/sec to avoid tipping.
B.2.7 Threshold Ramps
A gradient of 1:6 may be used for threshold ramps if there are no “V” shaped transitions
where the angle of the “V” is less than 1350 and the length of the ramp is not greater than
1000mm.
B.2.8 Camber
The maximum camber without a lateral stability check shall not exceed 1:50.
B.2.9 Irregular Surfaces and Abutments
The height of any surface abutment shall not exceed 18.5mm or the extent established by
a lateral stability check. It should be noted that the diameter of the candidate MWC caster
wheels is commonly 200mm and that the expert user survey regarded the standard
pavement abutment details at pedestrian crossing “laybacks” as excessive.
TGSIs should be avoided at base of each sloping section of ramp due to their impact on
the user start-up power required. The surface rolling resistance may increase markedly as
compared with that of the background surface. This is in line with the results of the expert
user survey in the Stage 1 Report.

Appendix C Input Data Sheets for Manual Chairs and

Persona Anthropometric Characteristics
C.1 Wheelchair Use / Selection References
The selection of the appropriate manual wheelchair was based on a combined analysis of
the following documents:
• Vignier N, Ravaud J-F, Winance M, Lepoutre F-X, and Ville I, (2008) Demographics
of wheelchair users in France: Results of national community-based handicaps-
incapacities-dependence surveys, J Rehabil Med Vol. 40 pp. 231-239.
• Yao F, (2007) Measurement and Modeling of Wheelchair Propulsion ability for people
with Spinal Cord Injury, Master of Mechanical Engineering Thesis, U of Canterbury.
• Steinfeld E, Paquet V, D’Souza C, Joseph C, and Maisel J, (2010) Anthropometry of
Wheeled Mobility Project, US Access Board, University at Buffalo, The State
University of New York.
• Paquet V, and Feathers D, (2004), An anthropometric study of manual and powered
wheelchair users, Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 33, pp 191-204.
• Hollingsworth, L. (2010). Understanding and Modelling Manual Wheelchair
Propulsion and Strength Characteristics in People with C5-C7 Tetraplegia. (PhD
Thesis), University of Canterbury, Canterbury, New Zealand.
• Spinal Outreach Team, University of Queensland, (2013) Manual Wheelchairs;
Information Resource for Service Providers, Queensland Government.
• Medola FO, Elui VMC, Santana C d-S and Fortulan CA (2014) Aspects of Manual
Wheelchair Configuration Affecting Mobility: A Review, J. Phys. Ther. Sc., Vol. 26 pp.
313-318.
• Karmarkar AM, Dicianno BE, Cooper R, Collins DM, Matthews JT, Koontz A,
Teodorski EF, and Cooper RA, (2011) Demographic Profile of Older Adults Using
Wheeled Mobility Devices, J of Aging Research, Article ID560358.
• DiGiovine MM, Cooper RA, Boninger ML, Lawrence BM, VanSickle DP and
Rentschler AJ, (2000) User Assessment of Manual Wheelchair Ride Comfort and
Ergonomics, Arch Phys Med Rehabil Vol. 81, pp. 490-494.
• Gagnon D, Babineau A-C, Champagne A, Desroches G, and Aissaoui R, (2015)
Trunk and Shoulder Kinematic and Electromyographic Adaptations to Slope Increase
during Motorized Treadmill Propulsion among Manual Wheelchair Users with a
Spinal Cord Injury, Biomed Research International, Article ID 636319, 15 pages
retrieved at http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/636319.
• Kim, C. S., Lee, D., Kwon, S., & Chung, M. K. (2014). Effects of ramp slope, ramp
height and users' pushing force on performance, muscular activity and subjective
ratings during wheelchair driving on a ramp. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 44, 636-646.

• Sabick, M., Kotajarvi, B., & An, K. (2004). A New Method to Quantify Demand on the
Upper Extremity During Wheelchair Propulsion. Archives of Physical Medicine and
• Rankin JW, Kwarciak AM, Richter WM, and Neptune RR, (2012) The Influence of
Wheelchair Propulsion Technique on Upper Extremity Muscle Demand: A Simulation
Study, J. Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon), Vol. 27, No. 9, pp. 879-886.
• Samuelsson, K., Tropp, H., & Gerdle, B. (2004). Shoulder pain and its consequences
in paraplegic spinal cord-injured, wheelchair users. Spinal Cord, 42, 41-46.
• Stefanov, D., Avtanski, A., Shapcott, N., Dryer, P., Fielden, S., Heelis, M., Moody, L.
(2014, June 11-12). A novel system for wheelchair stability assessment design and
initial results. Paper presented at the 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Medical
Measurements and Applications (MeMeA).
• May, L., Butt, C., Minor, L., Kolbinson, K., & Tulloch, K. (2003). Measurement
Reliability of Functional Tasks for Persons Who Self-Propel a Manual Wheelchair.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, 578-583.
• Holloway C and Tyler N, (2013), A micro-level approach to measuring the
accessibility of footways for wheelchair users using the capability model,
Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 36, No. 7, pp. 636-649.
• Canale I, Felici F, Marchetti M, and Ricci B, (1991), Ramp length/grade prescriptions
for wheelchair dependent individuals, Spinal Cord, Vol. 29, pp. 479-485.
• Cappozzo, A., Felici, F., Figura, F., Marchetti, M., & Ricci, B. (1991). Prediction of
Ramp Traversability for Wheelchair Dependent Individuals. Paraplegia, 29, 470-478.
C.2 Selection of Manual Wheelchair by User Requirements
C.2.1 Matching User Requirements Via A90 Wheelchair Comparison

Figure 5.1 (a) A Manual Wheelchair (b) Candidate Manual Wheelchair

Table 5.2 below shows that the candidate wheelchair satisfies the A90 Wheelchair
dimensional criteria as well as the 90th percentile (by stature) persona in terms of fit. There
are criteria that need to be filtered such as static and dynamic stability especially in relation
to gradients. The criteria requiring further explanation are highlighted in yellow and each
criterion has a key number.

Table 5.2 Dimensional Comparison between A-90 and Candidate Manual Wheelchairs
Criterion A90 Picture Description Min Value Max Value Compliance 90th Fit Fit?
Number Wheelchair Yes/No
1 454 Seat effective width 380 605 YES 500 YES
(mm)
2 795 Overall width (mm) 590 815 YES 600 YES
3 963 Total height (mm) 900 1030 YES See backrest YES
Note: The
backrest
projects mm
past the central
position of rear
wheel axle.
4 407 Height from ground 360 510 YES 499 YES

to back seat (mm)
5 407 Height from ground 360 510 YES 479 YES
to front seat (mm)
6 474 Backrest height 380 510 YES 470 YES

(mm)
7 855 Backrest height 1045 1290 YES 1255 YES
including headrest
(mm)
8 1237 Overall length (mm) 1050 1110 Use A90 949 YES
manoeuvring
length
9 918 Length without 830 900 NO 949 NO
footrest (mm)

10 491 Distance between 390 550 YES 500 YES
front wheel and rear
wheel (mm)
11 5 Backrest angle (0o) 0 30 YES 0-30 YES
12 59 Bracket angle (0o) 80 80 YES NA NA
13 432 Distance between 350 480 YES 479 YES

footrest and seat
(mm)
14 473 Distance between 250 350 NO But 367 YES
armrest and acceptable
backrest (mm)
15 347 Fixed armrest height 200 260 NO 263 YES
(mm)
16 N/A Adjustable armrest 190 295 NO 263 YES
height (mm)
17 665 Rear wheel 560 610 NO NA Satisfactory

diameter (mm) Evaluation.
18 541 Handrim diameter 470 520 Satisfactory Reachable YES
(mm)
19 0 Seat plane angle 0 6 YES Range YES
(0o)

20 672 Height without rear 605 605 NO NA NA
wheel (mm)
21 1080 Turning circle (mm) 850 850 NO USE USE
A90 A90
22 52 Cushion thickness 50 50 Satisfactory 50 YES
(mm)
23 Maximum obstacle 128 YES Check tilting Check
height (mm)
24 Maximum down 21 YES Stop-ping Check Braking

slope (0o)
25 Maximum up slope 7 YES ISO 7176 YES

(0o)
26 Maximum lateral 18.5 YES OK on single Check lateral

super elevation (0o) obstacle stability
27 Removable parts wheels YES YES

armrests
footrests
28 Overall weight when 15 17 NA Heavy NA
empty (kg)
29 User's maximum 110 160 NO 110 YES
weight (kg)

30 Weight of the 8.3 YES NA NA
heaviest removed
part (kg)
31 Seat material fire NA NA
class

The criterion numbers are:
• (3) Total wheelchair height – the range of heights satisfies the A90 and the
backrest is adjustable to suit the 90th percentile stature. The backrest is supplied with
a headrest and the dimension is greater than the A-90. It is adjustable and fits the
90th percentile stature.
• (9) The length of the wheelchair without the footrest is 18mm less than the A90.
The length with the footrest is 127mm less than the A90 but the footrest is adjustable.
The length of the candidate fits the 90th percentile stature in terms of the length of the
leg (knee to heel). The 127mm shortfall is therefore not an issue.
• (14) The distance between the armrest and the backrest is 123mm less than the
A90. It is, however, only 17mm shorter than the 90th percentile stature dimension and
could be adjusted.
• (15) The fixed armrest height is adjustable but at the fixed height it is 87mm less
than the A-90 dimension. It is suitable for the 90th percentile stature especially in a
“slumped” position.
• (17) The rear wheel diameter is 55mm less than the A-90. It satisfies the ISO
7176 tests so is acceptable. Shows slight variation in mass distribution. See also
Sauret et al (2012) 3
• (18) The handrim diameter is 21mm less than the A-90 but is reachable by the
90th percentile stature user.
• (23) The maximum obstacle height is noted as 128mm as determined in the ISO
7176 tests. This can cause problems in terms of the positioning of the wheelchair. If
the obstacle is encountered in a transition and or a static lateral position on the ramp
then the chair shall be checked for tilting ignoring the impact of the anti-tip devices.
• (24) The maximum down slope as tested under ISO 7176 is 210. It is doubtful that
this gradient will ever be feasible because of the maximum up slope permitted is 70
as tested under ISO 7176 – see criterion (25).
• (26) The maximum lateral stability is 18.50 so that this can be taken as the
• The dimension of the seat reference point in relation to the centreline of the axle of
the rear wheel is 32mm forwards of the axle.
• The diameter and width of the caster wheels are 203mm and 35mm respectively
• The rear wheels are pneumatic with a pressure of 65 psi or 448KPa and the casters
are standard solid polyurethane.
3Sauret et al (2012) Assessment of field rolling resistance of manual wheelchairs JRRD Vol 49 No. 1 pp. 63-
74

C.2.2 Review of Candidate Wheelchair – Pushing Force
The pushing force as discussed in the Stage 1 Desk Audit is a function of the User
Characteristics and a measure known as the Maximal Voluntary Contraction Measure 4. As
indicated in Kim et al (2014) the resultant allowable force groupings are as follows:
• Weak – 69.3 Newtons

• Medium Strength – 102.7 Newtons
• Strong or Peak Strength – 160.3 Newtons.
Males will start to lose strength due to a condition known as sarcopenia at the age of 40
years 5. Sarcopenia is synonymous with age. The test user (as noted in the Stage 1
Report) representative of the majority user group is aged 70 years. He is also likely to be
obese. The profile of manual wheelchair participants in the user survey undertaken with
the Stage 1 Desk Audit has been used to establish an appropriate BMI where the
participant stature is that of the 90th percentile male used for the PWC study. Using a
start-up force of 70N over 50% of the first cycle and then a sustained force of 60N for no
more than 17 seconds to traverse the sloping part of the ramp is considered to be
justifiable in terms of ISO 7176 and the Cappozzo Model where the pushing force is
expressed as the force exerted at the pushrim / mass of the user.
4 Rankin JW, Kwarciak AM, Richter WM, and Neptune RR, (2012) The Influence of Wheelchair Propulsion
Technique on Upper Extremity Muscle Demand: A Simulation Study, Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon) Vol. 27
No.9, pp 879-886.
5 Al-Abdulwahab,S., (1999) The effects of aging on muscle strength and functional ability of healthy Saudi
Arabian Males, Annals of Saudi Medicine, Vol.19, No.3, pp. 211-215 and MacLennan (2013) PhD Thesis,
University of Salford, USIR.

Figure 5.2 Pushing force vs grade confined by tipping angle on maximum grade
Note:
According to the Cappozzo Model a pushing force of (0.32*125) 40 Newtons could be
used to negotiate a gradient of 17% which is approximately 1 in 5. According to Rankin et
al (2012) and Canale et al (1993) the wheelchair would be unstable as the resistance due
to the gradient would be excessive. A sustained pushing force of 60 newtons 6 is therefore
recommended for a duration of 17 seconds as this is compatible with the expected
percentage of MVC (40%) and a start-up force of 70 Newtons for the first push cycle (50%
MVC).
The recommended percentage of MVC is less than the percentages used by Cappozzo et
al (1991) but it satisfies the research for the morbidly obese older person.
C.3 Evaluation of Candidate Wheelchair – User Based
In addition to the comparison with the A-90 Wheelchair and the analysis of the associated
pushing forces possible with the intended “representative user” discussed in this Appendix
(see C.2.2) associated with the candidate wheelchair, DiGiovine et al (2000) 7 conducted
an inclusively user based assessment of many MWC’s of which the candidate was one. A
sample of 30 community-dwelling users were selected and tested over an ADL course.
6 See also Kim CS, Lee D, Kwon S and Chung MK, (2014) Effects of ramp slope, ramp height, and users’
pushing force on performance, muscular activity and subjective ratings during wheelchair driving on a ramp,
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 44, pp. 636-646.
7 DiGiovine MM, Cooper RA, Boninger ML, Lawrence BM, VanSickle DP and Rentschler AJ, (2000) User
Assessment of Manual Wheelchair Ride Comfort and Ergonomics, Arch Phys Med Rehabil Vol. 81, pp. 490-
494.

The ride comfort and manoeuvrability of seven different types of MWC’s formed the basis
of the study. 23 of the sample had paraplegia which matches the SCI profile of the
candidate user being T6-T12.
The following ergonomic rankings were established for each type of MWC:
• Support (trunk) and stability

• Ease of manoeuvrability
• Hand contact on the push-rim
• Overall course comfort.
The candidate wheelchair had the highest comfort scores across all tasks relating to the
surfaces encountered 8 in the course including the ramp. This level of satisfaction also
included the ergonomic rankings listed above. These scores were all statistically significant
at p<0.05.
This test provides valuable information on the “perceived” ride comfort and ergonomics on
seven wheelchairs and justifies the selection of the candidate wheelchair which was
carried out independently and then triangulated with this study7. There is no doubt that this
perception could be extended into an exertion scale such as that of Borg as reflected in
RPE 9 scores. The mean traversal velocity was measured at 1m/sec and was self-selected.
One thing that is evident from this study is the fact that the upper body is NOT structured
for continual high-pressure use. Considering the impact of ramp gradient being like that of
stairs, the steeper the pitch the greater the “fear of falling” 10, a level of confidence needs to
be built into the PBD data. Cappozzo et al (1991) has done this to a certain extent and this
is reflected in the safety constraint built in to the capability measure of Fn/User force
shown in Figure 5.2 above.
A further study of the impact of wheelchair configuration on user mobility / capability may
be found in study by Medola et al (2014) 11. It indirectly espouses the value of prescription
by occupational therapists or rehabilitation clinicians as reflected in guidelines 12. The
8 This included obstructions with heights varying from 25mm to 75mm. It should be noted that these
obstacles were NOT located on the ramp so that the data sheet obstacle height of 18.5mm is justified. This
height can be increased by calculation of the actual static stability based on the worst case scenario position.
9 RPE is the rate of perceived exertion overall or a part of the trunk such as the arms and shoulders. This
scale has been successfully triangulated with quantitative respiratory measures such as oxygen uptake
(VO2) and heart rate – see Qi L, Ferguson-Pell M, Salimi Z, Haennel R and Ramadi A (2015) Wheelchair
users’ perceived exertion during typical mobility activities, Spinal Cord, Vol. 53, pp. 687-691.
10 MacLennan HA (2013) PhD Thesis, University of Salford, USIR
11 Medola FO, Elui VMC, Santana C d-S and Fortulan CA (2014) Aspects of Manual Wheelchair
Configuration Affecting Mobility: A Review, J. Phys. Ther. Sc., Vol. 26 pp. 313-318.
12 Spinal Outreach Team, University of Queensland, (2013) Manual Wheelchairs; Information Resource for
Service Providers, Queensland Government.

matching of a manual wheelchair via its configuration and seating design can improve the
users’ independence, sense of participation and quality of life. Medola et al (2014) state:
“Changes in the wheelchair configuration can affect propulsion forces, the range of motion
of the upper limb joints, rolling resistance and stability…….Accordingly healthcare
professionals have to find the best balance between balance between stability and
performance…….is important for minimizing the demand on the upper limbs during
manual propulsion…….”
Medola et al (2014) mention a study that showed a mismatch between wheelchair

configuration and user needs applied to 68% of all users. This will be reflected in the
seating configuration 13.
(a) Anterior – posterior position of the rear wheels: Moving the wheels back may
increase the stability but it adds to propulsion effort. This is a decision that needs to
be addressed inclusively in the prescription process. A further study may be useful
here being that of Gaal et al (1997) 14.
(b) Vertical position of rear wheels: Lowering the rear wheels increases the push
angle but increases the propulsion effort whilst increasing the height results in a
smaller “push angle” reducing the distance covered by each push on the handrim.
The optimal position is determined by the user’s anthropometry by looking at the
elbow angle at top of the wheel rim. Elbow angles ranging from 1000-1200 generally
reduce propulsion effort. See also Yao(2007)13
(c) Camber of rear wheels: Manoeuvrability is improved as is the base of support –
stability. It also improves acceleration which assists with start-up. Rolling resistance
improves and most likely the optimum camber especially for ramps is 60. No camber
has been allowed for in the candidate wheelchair.
(d) Frame material: Many users prefer lightweight chair setups. This does not appear to
be the case right across the board with the candidate MWC which is in the upper
range but which outperformed 6 other MWC models in terms of:
• Support (trunk) and stability
• Ease of manoeuvrability
• Hand contact on the push-rim
• Overall course comfort
(e) Caster wheels: Influence the MWC’s stability, manoeuvrability, rolling resistance and
comfort. Solid wheels are the most commonly used type of wheel. They require less
care and maintenance. The shorter the distance between the rear and front wheels
13Also in Yao F, (2007) Measurement and Modeling of Wheelchair Propulsion ability for people with Spinal
Cord Injury, Master of Mechanical Engineering Thesis, U of Canterbury.
14Gaal RP, Rebholtz N, Hotchkiss RD and Pfaelzer PF, (1997) Wheelchair rider injuries: Causes and
consequences for wheelchair design and selection, JRRD, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 58-71.

the lower the rolling resistance. The reduction in length (base of support) impacts on
stability. Solid casters have limited shock absorption potential. The construction of
the Candidate MWC appears to have overcome this problem by the feedback on
user comfort determined by Di-Giovine et al (2000)7.
(f) Rear wheels – tyre type: Pneumatic tyres are provided on the candidate MWC
thereby reducing the amount of vibration. Maintenance is still an issue.
(g) Leg and foot support: The user’s comfort and wheelchair stability can be affected if
the foot support is reduced because of the increased pressure on the backrest which
tends to reduce the anterior support for the feet thus making bending forward almost
impossible. If the foot support is too high then the thighs are not supported by the
seat. This increases pressure on the buttocks. The height should be adjusted and the
leg supports positioned at angle so that full leg and thigh contact is maintained and
seat pressure relieved. The knees should be capable of fully flexing as required. The
candidate MWC leg rests are fully adjustable with a range of some 200mm for the
assembly. This provides increased user comfort as determined in the study by
DiGiovine et al (2000)7.
(h) Handrim design: Usually 20mm in diameter the hand-rim tubes are usually too thin
for proper grasping so that users tend to hold both the tyre and the rim. Other
research 15 shows that larger diameter rims are more successful.
The full wheelchair specification in terms of dimensions is available in above in Section

2.1 together with the notes.
C.4 Persona Evaluation for Candidate MWC
C.4.1 Spinal Cord Injury Level
In line with Table 2 of Report 1 and Section 5.5 of the same Report the level is that of a
user who is a complete paraplegic (T6-T12) where the recommendation is that a MWC is
suitable and where the functional ability limitations are:
• Weakened trunk so that the wearing of restraints will be required.

• Weakened abdomen and upper chest – weak classification for pushing force.
• Fairly good at controlling balance in a seated position.
• Able to drive a modified car.
15Van der Linden ML, Valent L, Veeger HE et al (1996) The effect of wheelchair handrim tube diameter on
propulsion efficiency and force application (tube diameter and efficiency in wheelchairs) IEEE Trans Rehabil
Eng Vol. 4, pp. 123-132.

Figure 5.3 Levels of Spinal Cord Injuries – Study carried out by Canadian Paraplegic Association as
cited in Yao (2007) 13
Figure 5.3 shows that T6-T12 is second largest cluster
C.4.2 Stature
The stature to be used that is commensurate with the Stage 1 Report, the findings of
Paquet and Feathers (2004), Vignier et al (2008), Karmakar et al (2011), Steinfeld et al
(2011) and Caple et al (2014)16 is that of the 90th percentile male (See Section C.1 for full
citations).
C.4.3 Centre of Gravity
C.4.3.1 Seat Reference Point
Figure 5.4 Seat reference point
I-L Seat reference point at intersection of backrest and seat = 32mm.
16 Caple, D., Morris, N., Oakman, J., & Atherton, M. (2014). Research on Spatial Dimensions for Occupied
Manual and Powered Wheelchairs Project. Final Report Retrieved from Canberra, Australia: Accessed from:
https://www.abcb.gov.au/Resources/Publications/Research/Research-on-Spatial-Dimensions-for-Occupied-
Manual-and-Powered-Wheelchair-Projects

Centre of wheel Y-Yaxis.
C.4.3.2 Body Reference Diagram
Figure 5.5 Body reference diagram
C.4.3.3 Estimated CoG
Table 5.3 Person dimensions from CoG
Reference Element Measurement (in mm)

1 Hip width 500
2 Widest point across thighs 450
3 Thorax width 450
4 Knee to heel 492
5 Seat Reference point from CAD Model 535
(SRP) to knee
6 SRP to elbow 263
7 SRP to Shoulder 662
8 SRP to occipital (occipital height) 828
9 SRP to COG Upright position y-axis 304*
9’ SRP to COG forward position y-axis 356*
10 SRP to COG upright position x-axis 274*
10’ SRP to COG forward position x-axis 252*
Mass BMI of 33 110 Kg.
* Based on Wieczorek B, Gorecki J, Kukla M and Wojtokowiak D, (2016) The analytical method of
determining the CoG of a person propelling a manual wheelchair, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 177, pp. 405-
410.

C.5 Strength Characteristics

Figure 5.6 Power Output of Paraplegic Group from Canadian Study as cited in Yao (2007)
T6-T12 level of spinal cord injury shows that although the persona is allocated a 90th
percentile male stature that there is every chance that due to age (sarcopenia) and lack of
exercise that there will be a level of obesity. According to the intent of research by
Karmakar et al (2011) and MacLennan (2013) the most likely mass is 110kg which
matches similar personas in the User Survey in Report 1. The resultant BMI is 33 which is
bordering on morbidly obese.
Pushing force- this is specified in clause 7.5.1 of AS/NZS 3695.1 as follows and needs to
be included as a check in the PBD Model;
• 40 Newtons for a user mass not greater than 100kg so that 40N is the parameter for
the PBD Model
• 60 Newtons for a user mass greater than 100kg and less than 150kg.
• 70 Newtons for a user mass greater than 150kg and less than 200kg.

The pushing force test is specified in clause 7.5.2 and should be noted as a parameter for
assessment in terms of interpreting test reports. Foot supports and leg supports are also of
nterest and data is also available in the test reports for all manual wheelchairs that have
been tested in accordance with this Standard. The selection of 60 Newtons is in line with
the Standard and research of Kim et al (2014) as disseminated in Section C2.2 of this
Appendix.
The strength allocated for start up is 70 Newtons which is the upper boundary of the “Weak”
classification.
C.6 Graphical Method
The graphical method is based on a study carried out by Kim et al (2014) where subjective
comfort ratings measured by questionnaire after ramp traversal were triangulated with
velocity, ramp slope, and the user’s pushing force. Anova analysis between these
variables demonstrated a statistically significant relationship of p<.05 in Table 2 (p.640,
Kim et al, 2014). The most significant of the relationships between these measures was
correlation with ramp slope (S) X ramp height (rise) (H) where p<.01. Figure 5.5 below
summarises the results for 90% of the test sample which is deemed to be an appropriate
measure.
Figure 5.7 Tabular Check for PBD Solution
length of ramped section

7
6
1:14 or 7%
6 complies -
LENGTH OF SLOPED RAMP SECTION (M)
calculate using
Cappozzo et al
5 1991
4
3
3
1.8
2
1
1
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
PERCENTAGE GRADIENT (%)

Appendix D Input Data Sheets for Power Wheelchairs and

Persona Anthropometric Characteristics
D.1 Candidate Power Chair – Reasons for Selection and Data Sheet
D.1.1 Description
The candidate power wheelchair is a rear wheel drive assistive device with technology that
improves the “tracking” control. It has the flexibility and functionality to accommodate a
variety of driving styles and needs.
D.1.2 Evaluation of Physical Performance
The reference study for this evaluation is:
Fass MV, Cooper RA, Fitzgerald SG, Schmeler M, Boninger ML, Algood SD, Ammer WA,
Rentschler AJ and Duncan J, (2004), Durability, Value, and Reliability of Selected
Powered Wheelchairs, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, Vol. 85, pp. 805-814,
doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2003.08.096.
Highlights that support the selection of the candidate power wheelchair:
• The five brands varied significantly (p<.05).

• Candidate wheelchair had the highest durability which represented the highest
number of ANSI/RESNA 17 test cycles taken before the first component failure. The
candidate wheelchair lasted two times longer than the next most durable wheelchair
and five times than others.
• Candidate outperformed the others in terms of value. The value until first failure was
represented by the following relationship:
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓

𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
• Value of candidate was 1.2 times the next wheelchair model in line and 7.7 times that
of the model with the least value.
• Reliability took into account the number of incidents where repairs were required in
relation to the associated EC and also the total number of equivalent test cycles. The
candidate endured a greater number of EC between failures and this applied
particularly in the area of consumer related problems. In a nutshell the candidate was
found to be the most reliable. The candidate did, however experience some motor
failures.
17 Equivalent to ISO 7176 Suite of Standards

• Figure 5.6 shows accumulation of consumer and supplier failures:

Figure 5.8 Failure vs cycles plot. Source Figure 3 in Fass et al (2004) pg. 811
• The data point at 4,400,110 equivalent cycles does not represent a failure because
the wheelchair was still operable in terms of the ANSI/RESNA criteria 18.
• The durability, value and reliability can be used as an objective comparison guide for
clinicians and users. The understandings for clinicians and users is that these types
of findings should augment the needs of the users and the judgements of the
clinicians when prescribing or “scripting” wheelchairs.
D.1.3 User Criteria
D.1.3.1 Selection of Persona
The persona was developed further in this Stage 2 Study from that set down in the Stage1
Report from the following:
• ABS Population data – Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia, 2012, 2014-2015 and
2017.
• Caple D, et al, (2014) Research on Spatial Dimensions for Occupied and Manual and
Powered Wheelchair Project, Final Report for the ABCB.
18 Equivalent to ISO 7176 Suite of Standards

• Paquet V, and Feathers D, (2004), An anthropometric study of manual and powered

wheelchair users, Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 33, pp 191-204.
• Vignier N, Ravaud J-F, Winance M, Lepoutre F-X, and Ville I, (2008) Demographics
of wheelchair users in France: Results of national community-based handicaps-
incapacities-dependence surveys, J Rehabil Med Vol. 40 pp. 231-239.
• Karmarkar AM, Dicianno BE, Cooper R, Collins DM, Matthews JT, Koontz A,
Teodorski EF, and Cooper RA, (2011) Demographic Profile of Older Adults Using
Wheeled Mobility Devices, J of Aging Research, Article ID560358.
• Steinfeld (2005) IDEA Study (including data similar and replicating Paquet and
Feathers (2004)).
• Yao F, (2007) Measurement and Modeling of Wheelchair Propulsion ability for people
with Spinal Cord Injury, Master of Mechanical Engineering Thesis, U of Canterbury.
• Gooch SD, Woodfield T, Hollingsworth L, Rothwell AG, Medland AJ, and Yao F,
(2008) On the design of manual wheelchairs for people with spinal cord injuries,
International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
The persona was selected by stature based on the 90th percentile male with the following
additional attributes based on other user demographics:
• Age with associated obesity level – Karmarkar et al (2011) and Vignier et al (2008)
set at 70 years of age with a BMI of 30.
• SCI Level as suggested in Stage 1 Report, Yao (2007)19 and also Karmakar et al
(2011) being C5/C6 and above with loss of trunk control. It is most likely that age will
impact in terms of loss of strength due to a condition known as sarcopenia 20. This
then determined the allocation of the power wheelchair.
19 Study carried out by the Canadian Paraplegic Association which indicated that the most common level at
which SCI occurred was at the C5/C6 vertebra with paralysis to the triceps resulting in reduced upper
extremity strength and stability.
20 MacLennan HA, (2013) PhD Thesis, University of Salford, USIR.

Figure 5.9 Power vs Time plot of spinal cord injuries
D.1.3.2 USER NEEDS
It is most likely that the persona would have had his power chair prescribed by an
organisation such as Paraquad. The recommended approach may be found in a Guide
issued by “Assistive Technology Australia” 21. The criteria are fully described and were
used in the selection of the Candidate Wheelchair for the Persona described in Section
3.1. The Candidate Wheelchair has also been fully evaluated against other “popular”
models as described by Fass et al (2004) in Section 2. This is especially relevant given the
analysis undertaken of the chair “matching” described in Stage 1 of this Project of similar
personas in the Survey of Users (Paraquad and SCIA).
The technical specification of the candidate wheelchair is described in Section 4. The

wheelchair model is fully adjustable and closely matches the comfort that would be
available in the A90 equivalent. A rehabilitation seating setup is also available as well as
excess capacity that would cater for a persona BMI of 38+.
D.1.4 Technical Data
D.1.4.1 Seating Options
• Can be supplied with rehabilitation seating – cushioned.

• Seat height measured from the floor can vary from 440mm to 535mm.
• Full range of actions availability for tilting, reclining, elevating and a combination of
tilting and elevating.
• Can be operated by driver or remotely (e.g. carer).
21 Assistive Technology Australia (2016) Assistive Technology Guide – Powered Wheelchairs, retrieved at
https://at-aust.org/items/5809/print

D.1.4.2 Technical Data
• Overall dimensions of:

• Length = 1055mm
• Width = 675mm
• Height = 1025mm/1409mm
• Speed of 12kph
• Range of up to 47kms.
• Seat width ranges from 305mm to 610mm
• Seat depth ranges from 305mm to 560mm
• Seat tilt 00-100
• Seat to floor height is 535mm
• Armrest height is 254mm
• Backrest height ranges from 305mm to 660mm
• Clearance under base is 75mm
• Load (user) capacity
• Back angle set at 900 although it has a range of between 800-1150 in 50 increments.
• Caster wheels with a diameter of 200mm and width of 63.5mm, pneumatic tyres.
• Drive wheel with a diameter of 356mm and a width of 102mm, pneumatic tyres.
• Wheelchair capacity is 180Kg and an overall mass of 150Kg which includes the
batteries.
• Overall length allowed as long base type measured from head tube to standard anti
tip wheel = 800mm.
D.1.4.3 WHEELCHAIR PERFORMANCE 22
D.1.4.3.1 Static Stability
With reference to Table 13 and Figures 12 and 13 of Rentschler (2002) the tip angle
ranges are:
• Uphill with most stable minimum of 18.80- anti-tip performance disallowed.

• Downhill with most stable minimum of 16.50
• Lateral with most stable minimum of 14.80
22 Rentschler AJ, (2002) Analysis of the ANSI/RESNA Standards (ISO 7176 equivalent): A comparison study
of five different electric powered wheelchairs.

• The above shall define the static stability limits of the PBD solution for powered
wheelchairs.
D.1.4.3.2 Dynamic Stability
According to the test results the maximum gradient for the candidate wheelchair is 90
although a maximum of 80 should be used.
D.1.4.3.3 Effectiveness of Brakes
Braking proves to be a problem on slopes in excess of 60 -70 because of their tendency to

slide on a hard smooth surface. Even then it is possible that even with turning the power
off the “braking” distance could still exceed the length of the ramp i.e. 2.5m.
D.1.4.3.4 Persona / Wheelchair “Fit”
CoG Co-ordinate Checking 23 :
Figure 5.10 CoG of PWC downhill vs uphill
Note 1: The CoG position is established by dimensions 9/9’ and 10/10’ in Table 5.4
See MHRA (2004) Guidance on the stability of wheelchairs, MHRA DB2004(02), Department of Health,
23
UK.

D.1.4.3.5 Persona dimensions for wheelchair “fit”
Table 5.4 Person dimensions for wheelchair fit
Reference Element Measurement (in mm)

1 Hip width 500*
2 Widest point across thighs 450
3 Thorax width 450*
4 Knee to heel 492
5 Seat Reference point from CAD Model 535
(SRP) to knee
6 SRP to elbow 263
7 SRP to Shoulder 662
8 SRP to occipital (occipital height) 828
9 SRP to COG Upright position y-axis 25*
9’ SRP to COG forward position y-axis 25*
10 SRP to COG upright position x-axis 268* lack of trunk control
10’ SRP to COG forward position 280* lack of trunk control
Mass BMI of 38 126 kg
Figure 5.11 Persona dimensions from CoG
Persona dimensions – where the SRP is located vertically above the centre of the rear
drive wheel (axle).
• Increase in trunk thickness based on MacLennan (2013) for increased BMI of 38

building on work of Geraghty and Boone 24.
24 Geraghty,E.M., and Boone,J., (2003), Determination of Height, Weight, Body Mass Index and Body
Surface Area with a single CT Scan Image, Radiology, September 2003, pp.857-863.

Appendix E CAD Model for Graphical Static Stability and

Tipping Check for Both Manual and Power Wheelchairs
Alert
The SRP files with the 3D images/ projections are in the following files supplied as
companion files to this Report.
1. powered_chair.stp
2. manual_chair.stp

Appendix F Calculation of Manual Wheelchair Wheel Forces

F.1 Calculation of CoG of Power Wheelchair
Figure 5.12 Calculation of CoG of PWC
Note:
Wheelchair rigged so that junction between seat back and “cushion” is vertically above the
axle of the drive wheels. This is known as the SRP (seat reference point).
Adaptation of method described by Farah M, and Abdulatef R, Design a model for human
body to determine the CoG, retrieved from https://researchgate.net/publication/262425725
*Power base mass = 86Kg + 49Kg batteries + 17Kg for seat and controller etc. + 6 Kg
footrest and rigging. Element C – Mass distribution of batteries, motors etc. estimated from
user’s manual to be 1/3.5 of element length.

Table 5.5 Properties of Occupant/ PWC Free Body Diagram
Element Width (X) (mm) Height (Y) (mm) Mass (kg)

A 450/2 = 225 1000 (Y=500+535) (0.67*126) +17
B 450+227.5 = 677.5 535+100 = 635 (0.21*126)
C (1055-178)/3.5* = 535/2 = 267.5 (0.1*126) + 6 +
226 135
Determine X co-ordinate
ΣM= d × W element (A-C)

D x = ((101.5*225) + (26.41*677.5) + (154*226) / 282
D x = (22838+ 17893 + 34804) / 282
D x = 75535 / 282
D x = 268mm
Determine Y co-ordinate
ΣM= d × W element (A-C)

D y = ((101.5*1035) + (26.41*635) + (135*267.5) / 282
D y = (105053 + 16770 + 36113) / 282
D y = (157936) / 282
D y = 560mm
Note:
Wheelchair rigged so that the junction between the seat back and “cushion” is directly over
the axle of the drive wheels. This is known as the SRP (seat reference point).
Adaptation of method described by Farah M, and Abdulatef R, Design a model for human
body to determine the CoG, retrieved from https://researchgate.net/publication/262425725

F.2 Calculation of CoG of MWC

Figure 5.13 Calculation of MWC CoG
F.2.1 Determine Upright Position CoG

Figure 5.14 Properties of Occupant/MWC Free Body Diagram – Upright Position

A 450 (X=225) 1000 (Y = 910) 110*0.61 = 104 +
2 = 106
B 595 (X = 297.5) 770 (Y = 385) 15
C 455 (X = 450 + 200 (Y = 610) 110*.11 = 12
227.5)
D 300 (X = 595 + 510 (Y = 205) 110*.06 = 7 + 2 =
150) 9
ΣM= d × W element (A-D)

d x = ((106*225) + (15*297.5) + (12*677.5) + (9*745)) / 142
d x = (23850 + 4462.5 + 8130 + 6705) / 142
d x = 43147.5 / 142
d x = 304mm
dy = ((106*910) + (15*385) + (12*610) + (9*205)) / 2110
= (96460 + 5775 + 7320 + 1845) / 142
= 111400 / 142
= 784mm
F.2.2 Determine forward position

Figure 5.15 Properties of Occupant/MWC Free Body Diagram – Forward Position

A 450 (X=225+70) Y= 880 106
B 595 (X = 297.5) 770 (Y = 385) 15
C 455 (X = 450 + 200 (Y = 610) 110*.11 = 12
227.5)
D 300 (X = 595 + 510 (Y = 205) 110*.06 = 7 + 2 =
150) 9
d x = ((106*295)# + (15*297.5) + (12*677.5) + (9*745)) / 142
d x = (31270 + 4462.5 + 8130 + 6705) / 142
d x = 50567.5 / 142
d x = 356mm


dy = ((106*880) + (15*385) + (12*610) + (9*205)) / 2110
= (93280 + 5775 + 7320 + 1845) / 142
= 108220 / 142
= 762mm
# allows 50mm due to compression of lower trunk
Note:
Alteration in COG in forward position in line with change in co-ordinates in Study by
Wieczorek B, Gorecki J, Kukla M, Wojtokowiak D, (2017) The analytical method of
determining the CoG of a person propelling a manual wheelchair, Procedia Engineering,
Vol. 17, pp 405-410.
F.3 Calculation of Forces on Candidate MWC Wheels
Reference: Winter A, and Hotchkiss R, Mechanical Properties of Wheelchair Design,

Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT.
F.3.1 Equation 1
2F casters + 2F drive wheels – (F person+ wheelchair ) = 0

2F casters + 2F drive wheels – (110 + 17)(9.81) = 0
2F casters + 2F drive wheels – (1246N) = 0
F.3.2 Equation 2
F person+ wheelchair (L caster ) – 2F wheel (L caster + L wheel ) = 0
Fperson + wheelchair(Lcaster)
Fwheel =
(Lcaster + Lwheel)
1246(214)
= (214+336)
F wheel = 485N (71.5%)

F caster = 138N (28.5%)
FORCES ON WHEELS NOT REQUIRED FOR POWER CHAIR STABILITY CHECKS

Appendix G CAD Details of Candidate Wheelchairs

Alert:
These details are not included as they are currently under development.

Ramps Verification Method DV3 Proposed For NCC 2019

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ramps Verification Method DV3 Proposed For NCC 2019

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Supporting Document

Increasing the use of Performance

Quantification of NCC Performance Requirements

© 2018 Commonwealth of Australia and States and Territories of Australia

Australian Building Codes Board Page 1

1 Building Regulation in Australia ..........................................................................5

2 Performance Based Design of Ramps............................................................... 12

3 Using DV3 ............................................................................................................ 18

Australian Building Codes Board Page 2

3.4.1 Persona Manual Wheelchair (MWC) ............................................ 21

Appendix A Note on Appendices B – G ........................................................ 39

Appendix B Ramp safety design brief and boundary parameters.............. 40

Appendix C Input Data Sheets for Manual Chairs and Persona

Australian Building Codes Board Page 3

C.4.3 Centre of Gravity .......................................................................... 57

Appendix D Input Data Sheets for Power Wheelchairs and Persona

Appendix F Calculation of Manual Wheelchair Wheel Forces .................... 69

Appendix G CAD Details of Candidate Wheelchairs .................................... 74

Australian Building Codes Board Page 4

1 Building Regulation in Australia

1.2 Demonstrating Compliance with the NCC

The Performance Requirements prescribe the minimum necessary requirements for

Three options are available to demonstrate compliance with the Performance

Australian Building Codes Board Page 5

A Performance Solution, or a combination of Performance and DTS Solutions should be

Australian Building Codes Board Page 6

The primary purpose of this document is to assist practitioners undertake or review

1.3 Design and Approval

1.3.1 Design and Approval Process

1.3.2 Disability Discrimination Act – Disability (Access to Premise – Buildings) 2010

Australian Building Codes Board Page 7

1.3.3 Other Applicable Acts, Regulations and Design Responsibilities

The Code of Practice defines safe design as:

• the design and its intended purpose

Australian Building Codes Board Page 8

• what legislation, codes of practice and standards need to be considered and

• architects, building designers, engineers, building surveyors, interior designers,

This approach should be undertaken whichever NCC compliance pathway is adopted.

• The NCC and associated referenced documents represent nationally recognised

Australian Building Codes Board Page 9

• Detailed design of features to optimise reliability and facilitate safe installation,

1.3.4 Additional Guidance

Australian Building Codes Board Page 10

Australian Building Codes Board Page 11

2 Performance Based Design of Ramps

1. Desk Audit/Literature Review of Ramp Traversability by Wheelchairs and Mobility

2.1 Ramp Design

Australian Building Codes Board Page 12

2.1.2 Maximum Transition Gradient

2.1.3 Rolling Resistance

Rolling resistance can be one of the major impediments to wheelchairs traversing

• friction at the contact interface

2.1.4 Width – Manoeuvrability and Turning

Australian Building Codes Board Page 13

2.1.5 Ramp Length vs Gradient

2.1.7 Irregular Surface and Abutments

Australian Building Codes Board Page 14

2.1.8 Guides and Rails

In undertaking this assessment designers should investigate if there are alternative

2.1.10 Consideration of Input Data and Requirements

Australian Building Codes Board Page 15

Figure 2.1 DV3 Process flow chart

2.2 Occupant Data and Characteristics