Road loads acting on manual wheelchairs

A barrier to performing more in-depth analyzes during the wheelchair design process is a lack of dynamic reaction force and moment data, and the instrumentation to collect this data. Instrumentation was developed to collect the dynamic force and moment data. New data collections methodologies and analysis techniques were implemented to facilitate computer-aided-engineering for wheelchair designs. Data were collected during standardized wheelchair fatigue tests, while driving over a simulated road course within a laboratory, and while driving in the community. Seventeen subjects participated in this study. Based upon the three test conditions, a pseudo-statistical distribution of the force and moment data at both a caster and rear wheel was developed. The key parameters describing the distribution and the extremums of the data (minima and maxima) were compared using analysis of variance. The results showed that the force and moment distributions and extreme values were similar for the both sets of human trials (i.e., simulated road course and field trials). However, the standardized testing (i.e., wheelchair fatigue testing) differed from both human trials. The force/moment data gathered during this study are suitable for inputs in finite element analysis and dynamic modeling. Our results suggest that the fatigue tests should be modified to change the magnitude and increase the frequency of the forces and moments imparted on the wheelchair. The data reported from this study can be used to improve wheelchair standards and to facilitate computer-aided-engineer in wheelchair design

Analysis of vibrations induced during wheelchair propulsion

Little is known about how dynamic acceleration affects wheelchair-rider comfort. The current study was to test both the operation of an instrumented wheelchair by a wheelchair user over a Simulated Road Course (SRC) and the operation of the same instrumented wheelchair during normal daily activities (a field test) by test subjects. Sixteen subjects participated in the protocol. A SRC allowed collection of data from wheelchair users traversing obstacles similar to those experienced by a typical wheelchair user. The SRC consisted of eight obstacles fixed rigidly to a flat concrete surface. The field test began after the conclusion of the SRC test. Transfer functions were derived for all 16 subjects. It is clear from the results that for the SRC, the acceleration at the wheelchair frame exceeded the 8-h "fatigue-decreased performance boundary." A vertical acceleration resonant peak was evident for eight of the subjects. The average for these peaks, when present, was 8.1 Hz. This frequency is higher than the 4-6 Hz resonant peak presented in the literature for a seated human subject. This discrepancy could be due to different levels of trunk control between wheelchair users in this study and ambulatory subjects used in the literature. Subjects and their wheelchairs were exposed to a few, high-acceleration events rather than consistent, small-magnitude accelerations during the field test. This study indicates that vibration may be a contributing factor to fatigue among manual wheelchair users, which could lead to injury

User assessment of manual wheelchair ride comfort and ergonomics

Objective: To examine wheelchair-user perceived ride comfort during propulsion and to compare the ride comfort of ultralight and lightweight manual wheelchairs. An ultralight wheelchair is defined as having a high degree of adjustability, whereas a lightweight wheelchair has minimal adjustability. Design and Participants: Repeated measures design of a sample of 30 community-dwelling manual wheelchair users evaluating 7 different manual wheelchairs over an activities of daily living course. Setting: A rehabilitation engineering center. Main Outcome Measures: Subject ratings of perceived ride comfort and basic ergonomics while propelling over the activities of daily living course. Ratings were recorded for each wheelchair on individual tasks and for the course overall. Results: The Invacare Action XT wheelchair was ranked best for both ride comfort and basic ergonomics. The ride-comfort scores (p < .05) and wheelchair ergonomics ratings (p < .05) for the ultralight wheelchair group were significantly different from those for lightweight wheelchair group. Conclusion: There are differences in perceived ride comfort and basic ergonomics between the designs of the wheelchairs (lightweight vs ultralight). Subjects perceived that ultralight wheelchairs were more comfortable and had better basic ergonomics than lightweight wheelchairs. (C) 2000 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation