A method for confirming the comfort of a forklift truck

Abstract

The application discloses a forklift comfort degree confirmation method, comprising the following steps: selecting multiple forklift models, and constructing an evaluation sample library; setting a forklift simulation system according to forklift operation characteristics, and performing standardized simulation analysis; organizing qualified evaluation personnel to perform standardized subjective evaluation; fusing and verifying simulation analysis data and subjective evaluation data, and establishing forklift comfort degree quantization benchmarks; and confirming the comfort degree of a target forklift based on the quantization benchmarks. The forklift comfort degree confirmation method realizes objective and accurate evaluation of the forklift comfort degree by establishing a standardized simulation system and a subjective evaluation process; the evaluation is performed from two dimensions of simulation analysis and subjective evaluation, the mechanical performance and ergonomics design of the forklift are comprehensively considered, and the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the evaluation result are improved; the forklift comfort degree quantization benchmarks are established, a unified standard is provided for comfort degree comparison between different forklift models, and a scientific basis is provided for forklift design optimization.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of forklift ergonomics, and more specifically, to a method for confirming forklift comfort. Background Technology

[0002] As forklift applications continue to expand, drivers are demanding higher levels of comfort from their operators. Currently, forklift comfort evaluation relies primarily on subjective feelings, lacking a standardized evaluation system, and making objective comparisons of comfort levels between different models impossible. Furthermore, existing simulation analysis methods do not adequately consider the unique operating conditions of forklifts and the physical differences among drivers, leading to significant discrepancies between simulation results and actual operating experiences.

[0003] Therefore, there is an urgent need for a method to confirm forklift comfort. Summary of the Invention

[0004] The purpose of this invention is to provide a method for confirming forklift comfort, in order to solve the problems in the prior art. By establishing a standardized simulation system and subjective evaluation process, the method can achieve an objective and accurate evaluation of forklift comfort, thereby improving the accuracy and comparability of the evaluation results.

[0005] This invention provides a method for confirming forklift comfort, comprising:

[0006] Multiple forklift models were selected to construct an evaluation sample library;

[0007] A forklift simulation system was designed based on the characteristics of forklift operation, and standardized simulation analysis was performed based on the forklift simulation system.

[0008] Organize qualified assessment personnel to conduct standardized subjective evaluations;

[0009] By fusing simulation analysis data with subjective evaluation data for verification, a quantitative benchmark for forklift comfort is established.

[0010] The comfort level of the target forklift is confirmed based on the aforementioned forklift comfort quantification benchmark.

[0011] In the forklift comfort confirmation method described above, preferably, the multiple forklift models include: forklifts covering different tonnage classes and different power types, wherein the tonnage classes include 2-ton, 3-ton, and 5-ton classes, and the power types include internal combustion forklifts and electric forklifts.

[0012] The method for confirming forklift comfort as described above, preferably, involves setting up a forklift simulation system based on the forklift's operational characteristics and performing standardized simulation analysis based on the forklift simulation system, including:

[0013] Set up typical operating conditions specific to forklifts based on their operational characteristics;

[0014] Set uniform simulation boundary conditions based on the operating characteristics of forklifts;

[0015] Using a software-standard human body database, three human body models were established at the 5th percentile, 50th percentile, and 95th percentile, covering the main body size range of forklift drivers.

[0016] Establish forklift-specific analytical indicators based on the characteristics of forklift operations.

[0017] In the forklift comfort confirmation method described above, preferably, the forklift-specific typical operating conditions include forward stacking, reversing, and loading / unloading conditions.

[0018] In the forklift comfort confirmation method described above, preferably, the unified simulation boundary conditions include: using an unloaded vehicle load state and a straight road surface condition under all working conditions.

[0019] In the forklift comfort confirmation method described above, preferably, the forklift-specific analysis indicators include: neck and shoulder joint comfort during reversing, forward and downward field of vision during forward stacking, and lower limb joint movement trajectory during loading and unloading.

[0020] In the forklift comfort confirmation method described above, preferably, the evaluators conducting the standardized subjective evaluation must simultaneously meet the following conditions:

[0021] The body dimensions cover the 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles; different body types are included, specifically categorized as underweight, normal, and overweight; and the personnel must hold valid forklift operation licenses, with a total of no fewer than 8 people, including experts familiar with the vehicles and ordinary drivers.

[0022] The method for confirming forklift comfort as described above, preferably, involves standardized subjective evaluation by qualified evaluators, including:

[0023] The subjective evaluation items are determined, including: lower limb comfort, waist and hip comfort, shoulder and neck comfort, upper limb comfort, visual field obstruction, and accessibility;

[0024] Each of the subjective evaluation items is evaluated, and the evaluation criteria for each subjective evaluation item adopts a scoring system with a score range of 1-5 points: where 1 point is the worst and 5 points is the best.

[0025] Determine the weight of each of the subjective evaluation items;

[0026] The subjective evaluation items are weighted and summed to obtain the subjective comprehensive evaluation score of the vehicle model.

[0027] The method for confirming forklift comfort as described above, preferably, involves fusing simulation analysis data with subjective evaluation data to establish a quantifiable benchmark for forklift comfort, including:

[0028] Determine the evaluation element set X={X1,X2,X3}, where X1 represents the front valve stem operation element set, X2 represents the mid-valve stem evaluation element set, and X3 represents the multi-functional handrail operation element set.

[0029] The subjective evaluation results and simulation evaluation results of the human factors engineering under the pre-valve stem operation element set are determined as the first evaluation element set L={L1,L2}, where L1 represents the subjective evaluation result and L2 represents the simulation evaluation result;

[0030] The subjective evaluation results and simulation evaluation results of the human factors engineering under the central valve stem evaluation element set are determined as the second evaluation element set E={E1,E2}, where E1 represents the subjective evaluation result and E2 represents the simulation evaluation result.

[0031] The subjective evaluation results and simulation evaluation results of the human-machine engineering under the multi-functional handrail operation element set are determined as the third evaluation element set V={V1,V2}, where V1 represents the subjective evaluation result and V2 represents the simulation evaluation result;

[0032] Set the weight set W={W1,W2}, where W1 represents the subjective evaluation weight and W2 represents the simulation evaluation result weight;

[0033] The final score for the vehicle model is calculated using the formulas Q=L×W, R=E×W, and U=V×W. Where Q represents X1: the final score for the operation of the front valve stem, R represents X2: the final score for the operation of the central valve stem, and U represents X3: the final score for the operation of the multi-functional armrest.

[0034] The final scores of all vehicle models are sorted, and the result of the vehicle model ranked first in each operating posture is determined as the standardization benchmark for subsequent simulations of that posture.

[0035] The method for confirming forklift comfort as described above, preferably, involves confirming the comfort of the target forklift based on the forklift comfort quantification benchmark, which includes:

[0036] Collect simulation data and subjective evaluation data of the target forklift;

[0037] The simulation data and subjective evaluation data of the target forklift are compared and analyzed with the quantitative benchmark to assess whether the comfort level of the target forklift meets the standard.

[0038] Calculate the final score of the target forklift using the formulas Q=L×W, R=E×W, and U=V×W to evaluate the overall comfort level of the target forklift.

[0039] This invention provides a method for confirming forklift comfort. By establishing a standardized simulation system and subjective evaluation process, it achieves an objective and accurate evaluation of forklift comfort, improving the comparability and reliability of the evaluation results. By evaluating from two dimensions—simulation analysis and subjective evaluation—it comprehensively considers the mechanical performance and ergonomic design of the forklift, improving the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the evaluation results. By establishing a standardized benchmark for forklift comfort, it provides a unified standard for comparing comfort levels between different models, providing a scientific basis for forklift design optimization. By establishing three human body models (5th percentile, 50th percentile, and 95th percentile) and including evaluators with different body types, it ensures that the evaluation results are applicable to drivers of different heights and body types. Attached Figure Description

[0040] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of this invention clearer, the invention will be further described below with reference to the accompanying drawings, wherein:

[0041] Figure 1 A flowchart illustrating an embodiment of the forklift comfort confirmation method provided by the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0042] Various exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure will now be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. The descriptions of the exemplary embodiments are merely illustrative and are in no way intended to limit the present disclosure or its application or use. The present disclosure may be implemented in many different forms and is not limited to the embodiments described herein. These embodiments are provided so that the present disclosure will be thorough and complete, and will fully express the scope of the disclosure to those skilled in the art. It should be noted that, unless specifically stated otherwise, the relative arrangement of components and steps, the composition of materials, numerical expressions, and values ​​set forth in these embodiments should be interpreted as exemplary only and not as limiting.

[0043] The terms “first,” “second,” and similar terms used in this disclosure do not indicate any order, quantity, or importance, but are merely used to distinguish different parts. Terms such as “including” or “contains” mean that the element preceding the term encompasses the element listed after it, and do not exclude the possibility of encompassing other elements as well. Terms such as “above” and “below” are used only to indicate relative positional relationships; when the absolute position of the described object changes, this relative positional relationship may also change accordingly.

[0044] In this disclosure, when a specific component is described as being located between a first component and a second component, an intermediary component may or may not be present between the specific component and the first or second component. When a specific component is described as connecting to other components, the specific component may be directly connected to the other components without having an intermediary component, or it may not be directly connected to the other components but may have an intermediary component.

[0045] All terms used in this disclosure (including technical or scientific terms) have the same meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this disclosure pertains, unless otherwise specifically defined. It should also be understood that terms defined in a general dictionary, such as a dictionary, should be interpreted as having a meaning consistent with their meaning in the context of the relevant art, and not as having an idealized or highly formalized meaning, unless expressly defined herein.

[0046] Techniques, methods, and equipment known to those skilled in the art may not be discussed in detail, but where appropriate, they should be considered part of the specification.

[0047] like Figure 1 As shown, the method for confirming forklift comfort provided in this embodiment includes the following steps in actual execution:

[0048] Step S1: Select multiple forklift models and construct an evaluation sample library.

[0049] In this invention, multiple forklift models with market acceptance are selected. These models include forklifts covering different tonnage classes and power types, specifically 2-ton, 3-ton, and 5-ton forklifts, and internal combustion and electric forklifts, ensuring broad representativeness of the sample. The 2-ton forklift is suitable for light-duty handling, the 3-ton forklift for medium-duty handling, and the 5-ton forklift for heavy-duty handling; internal combustion forklifts are suitable for long-distance outdoor operations, while electric forklifts are suitable for short-distance indoor operations.

[0050] Step S2: Set up a forklift simulation system based on the characteristics of forklift operation, and perform standardized simulation analysis based on the forklift simulation system.

[0051] In one embodiment of the forklift comfort confirmation method of the present invention, step S2 may specifically include:

[0052] Step S21: Set typical operating conditions specific to forklifts based on their operating characteristics.

[0053] The forklift's unique typical operating conditions include forward stacking, reversing, and loading / unloading.

[0054] Specifically, the forward stacking operation includes the following sequence of actions: starting, moving forward to the shelf, raising the forks to 3 meters, tilting the forks forward to 15°, inserting the pallet, tilting the forks backward to 10°, raising to the target height, and exiting, which simulates the actual operation of a forklift stacking goods in a warehouse.

[0055] The reversing operation includes a sequence of actions such as engaging reverse gear, turning around to look back to 120°, reversing for 5 meters, correcting direction, and stopping, simulating the actual process of a forklift reversing in a narrow space.

[0056] Getting on and off the vehicle: This includes a sequence of actions such as stepping on the pedal from the ground, grabbing the handrail, entering the cab, sitting down, and vice versa, simulating the actual process of a driver getting on and off a forklift in daily life.

[0057] By setting typical operating conditions specific to forklifts, a test framework that fits the actual operating scenario can be provided for standardized simulation analysis.

[0058] Step S22: Set uniform simulation boundary conditions for forklift operation characteristics.

[0059] The unified simulation boundary conditions include: using an unloaded vehicle load state and a straight road surface condition for all operating conditions to ensure that all test vehicle models are analyzed under the same environmental parameters. Specifically, an unloaded state means the forklift is not loaded with any goods, and a straight road surface means the road surface smoothness meets the Class B requirements of ISO 8608 standard. By setting unified simulation boundary conditions, a fair basis for horizontal comparison of simulation data from different vehicle models can be provided.

[0060] Step S23: Using a software standard human body database, establish three human body models at the 5th percentile, 50th percentile, and 95th percentile, covering the main body size range of forklift drivers.

[0061] The simulation employs three different human body models: the 5th percentile (approximately 158cm tall and 50kg in weight) represents shorter individuals, simulating the physique of female or slender male drivers; the 50th percentile (approximately 170cm tall and 65kg in weight) represents medium-sized individuals, simulating the physique of average male drivers; and the 95th percentile (approximately 182cm tall and 80kg in weight) represents tall individuals, simulating the physique of tall male drivers. By establishing these three different percentile models, the simulation analysis results are ensured to be adaptable to drivers of varying heights and body types, avoiding analytical biases caused by using a single human body model.

[0062] Step S24: Establish forklift-specific analysis indicators based on forklift operation characteristics.

[0063] Among them, the forklift-specific analysis indicators include: neck and shoulder joint comfort under reversing conditions, forward and downward field of vision under forward stacking conditions, and lower limb joint movement trajectory under loading and unloading conditions.

[0064] Specifically, neck and shoulder joint comfort during reversing is evaluated by measuring the driver's neck twisting angle and shoulder abduction angle during reversing. A neck twisting angle ≤45° and a shoulder abduction angle ≤30° are considered to indicate good comfort.

[0065] Forward downward field of vision under forward stacking conditions: The driver's visible range of goods and ground is evaluated by calculating the area of ​​the forward downward blind spot during stacking. A forward downward blind spot ≤ 15° is considered good visibility.

[0066] Lower limb joint movement trajectory during getting on and off the vehicle: The ease of movement and comfort of the lower limb joints were evaluated by measuring the knee flexion angle and leg range of motion of the driver during getting on and off the vehicle. Among them, a knee flexion angle between 90° and 120° and a leg range of motion ≥ 500 mm were evaluated as good comfort.

[0067] By establishing forklift-specific analytical indicators, targeted quantitative dimensions can be provided for evaluating forklift comfort.

[0068] Step S3: Organize qualified assessment personnel to conduct standardized subjective evaluations.

[0069] The evaluators conducting the standardized subjective evaluation must meet the following conditions simultaneously:

[0070] The body dimensions cover three ranges: the 5th percentile, the 50th percentile, and the 95th percentile. The 5th percentile corresponds to a height of approximately 158cm, the 50th percentile to approximately 170cm, and the 95th percentile to approximately 182cm, ensuring that the testers represent drivers of different heights. Different body types are included, specifically categorized as underweight (BMI < 18.5), normal weight (BMI 18.5-23.9), and overweight (BMI ≥ 24), ensuring that the testers represent drivers of different body types. At least eight personnel hold valid forklift operator's licenses, including experts familiar with the vehicle and ordinary drivers, ensuring the professionalism and representativeness of the evaluation results.

[0071] In one embodiment of the forklift comfort confirmation method of the present invention, step S3 may specifically include:

[0072] Step S31: Determine the subjective evaluation items, which include: lower limb comfort, waist and hip comfort, shoulder and neck comfort, upper limb comfort, visual field obstruction, and accessibility.

[0073] Step S32: Evaluate each of the subjective evaluation items. The evaluation criteria for each subjective evaluation item adopts a scoring system with a score range of 1-5 points, where 1 point is the worst and 5 points is the best.

[0074] Specifically, the scores for lower limb comfort, lower back and hip comfort, shoulder and neck comfort, upper limb comfort, visual field obstruction, and accessibility are C1-C6, respectively. In practice, evaluators score each subjective evaluation item using a standardized subjective evaluation questionnaire.

[0075] Step S33: Determine the weight of each of the subjective evaluation items.

[0076] Specifically, the weights for lower limb comfort, lower back and hip comfort, shoulder and neck comfort, upper limb comfort, visual field obstruction, and accessibility are P1-P6, respectively, where P1+P2+P3+P4+P5+P6=1.

[0077] In one embodiment of the present invention, P1=0.2, P2=0.15, P3=0.1, P4=0.3, P5=0.2, and P6=0.05, meaning that lower limb comfort accounts for 20% of the weight, lumbar and hip comfort accounts for 15%, shoulder and neck comfort accounts for 10%, upper limb comfort accounts for 30%, field of vision obstruction accounts for 15%, and accessibility accounts for 5%. It should be noted that the present invention does not specifically limit the weight allocation of P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, and P6; their values ​​will vary depending on the specific considerations for different vehicle models.

[0078] Step S34: Perform a weighted summation of each subjective evaluation item to obtain the subjective comprehensive evaluation score of the vehicle model.

[0079] Specifically, the subjective comprehensive evaluation score T = C1×P1 + C2×P2 + C3×P3 + C4×P4 + C5×P5 + C6×P6.

[0080] Specifically, the subjective evaluation questionnaire includes the following:

[0081] Lower limb comfort: pedal position, pedal travel, pedal force, foot space, etc.;

[0082] Lumbar and hip comfort: seat back angle comfort, seat wrapping, hip pressure, lumbar support, etc.;

[0083] Neck and shoulder comfort: neck and shoulder fatigue, head space, etc.

[0084] Upper limb comfort: steering wheel angle, size, and operating force; grip, accessibility, travel, and operating force of right-hand operating components; hand space, etc.

[0085] Field of view: forward view, rear view, forklift view, etc.

[0086] Step S4: Integrate and verify the simulation analysis data with the subjective evaluation data to establish a quantitative benchmark for forklift comfort.

[0087] In one embodiment of the forklift comfort confirmation method of the present invention, step S4 may specifically include:

[0088] Step S41: Determine the evaluation element set X={X1,X2,X3}, where X1 represents the front valve stem operation element set, X2 represents the central valve stem evaluation element set, and X3 represents the multi-functional handrail operation element set.

[0089] Step S42: Determine the subjective evaluation results and simulation evaluation results of the human-machine engineering under the pre-valve stem operation element set as the first evaluation element set L={L1,L2}, where L1 represents the subjective evaluation result and L2 represents the simulation evaluation result.

[0090] Step S43: Determine the subjective evaluation results and simulation evaluation results of the human factors engineering under the central valve stem evaluation element set as the second evaluation element set E={E1,E2}, where E1 represents the subjective evaluation result and E2 represents the simulation evaluation result.

[0091] Step S44: Determine the subjective evaluation results and simulation evaluation results of the human-machine engineering under the multi-functional handrail operation element set as the third evaluation element set V={V1,V2}, where V1 represents the subjective evaluation result and V2 represents the simulation evaluation result.

[0092] Steps S42-S44 can be used to determine the set of operating elements for the front valve stem, the set of evaluation elements for the central valve stem, and the set of evaluation elements for the multi-functional handrail.

[0093] Step S45: Set the weight set W={W1,W2}, where W1 represents the subjective evaluation weight and W2 represents the simulation evaluation result weight.

[0094] In one embodiment of the present invention, W1=0.4 and W2=0.6, meaning that the subjective evaluation result accounts for 40% of the weight and the simulation evaluation result accounts for 60% of the weight. It should be noted that the present invention does not impose specific limitations on the weight allocation of W1 and W2.

[0095] Step S46: Calculate the final score of the vehicle model according to the formula Q=L×W, R=E×W, U=V×W, where Q represents X1: the final score of the front valve stem operation, R represents X2: the final score of the central valve stem operation, and U represents X3: the final score of the multi-functional armrest operation.

[0096] Step S47: Sort the final scores of all vehicle models and determine the result of the vehicle model ranked first in each operating posture as the standardization benchmark for subsequent simulations of that posture.

[0097] For example, the model with the highest final score in front valve stem operation is used as the simulation standardization benchmark for front valve stem operation.

[0098] Step S5: Confirm the comfort level of the target forklift based on the forklift comfort quantification benchmark.

[0099] In one embodiment of the forklift comfort confirmation method of the present invention, step S5 may specifically include:

[0100] Step S51: Collect simulation data and subjective evaluation data of the target forklift.

[0101] The simulation data includes neck twisting angle, shoulder abduction angle, and blind spot in the lower frontal field of vision, while the subjective evaluation data includes front valve stem operation score, central valve stem operation score, and multi-functional handrail operation score.

[0102] Step S52: Compare and analyze the simulation data and subjective evaluation data of the target forklift with the quantitative benchmark to evaluate whether the comfort level of the target forklift meets the standard.

[0103] Step S53: Calculate the final score of the target forklift according to the formulas Q=L×W, R=E×W, U=V×W, and evaluate the overall comfort level of the target forklift.

[0104] By confirming the comfort level of the target forklift, targeted optimization suggestions can be made for indicators that do not meet the standards, such as adjusting the seat position, optimizing the joystick angle, and improving the handrail design, thereby improving the operating comfort and safety of the forklift.

[0105] It should be noted that the present invention does not specifically limit the execution order of steps S2 and S3. In one embodiment, step S2 is executed first and then step S3 is executed. In another embodiment, step S3 is executed first and then step S2 is executed. In other embodiments, steps S3 and S2 can be executed in parallel, and the simulation analysis and subjective evaluation do not interfere with each other. Finally, the data is summarized and compared in step S4. This parallel execution mechanism can effectively shorten the evaluation cycle and improve work efficiency.

[0106] The forklift comfort confirmation method provided in this invention establishes a standardized simulation system and subjective evaluation process, achieving an objective and accurate evaluation of forklift comfort and improving the comparability and reliability of the evaluation results. By evaluating from both simulation analysis and subjective evaluation dimensions, it comprehensively considers the mechanical performance and ergonomic design of the forklift, improving the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the evaluation results. By establishing a standardized benchmark for forklift comfort, it provides a unified standard for comparing comfort levels between different models, providing a scientific basis for forklift design optimization. By establishing three human body models (5th percentile, 50th percentile, and 95th percentile) and including evaluators with different body types, it ensures that the evaluation results are applicable to drivers of different heights and body types.

[0107] The embodiments of this disclosure have now been described in detail. To avoid obscuring the concept of this disclosure, some details known in the art have not been described. Those skilled in the art can fully understand how to implement the technical solutions disclosed herein based on the above description.

[0108] While specific embodiments of this disclosure have been described in detail by way of examples, those skilled in the art should understand that the examples are for illustrative purposes only and not intended to limit the scope of this disclosure. Those skilled in the art should understand that modifications can be made to the above embodiments or equivalent substitutions can be made to some technical features without departing from the scope and spirit of this disclosure. The scope of this disclosure is defined by the appended claims.

Claims

1. A method for confirming forklift comfort, characterized in that, include: Multiple forklift models were selected to construct an evaluation sample library; A forklift simulation system was designed based on the characteristics of forklift operation, and standardized simulation analysis was performed based on the forklift simulation system. Organize qualified assessment personnel to conduct standardized subjective evaluations; By fusing simulation analysis data with subjective evaluation data for verification, a quantitative benchmark for forklift comfort is established. The comfort level of the target forklift is confirmed based on the aforementioned forklift comfort quantification benchmark.

2. The method for confirming forklift comfort according to claim 1, characterized in that, The various forklift models include forklifts covering different tonnage levels and different power types, with the tonnage levels including 2-ton, 3-ton, and 5-ton classes, and the power types including internal combustion forklifts and electric forklifts.

3. The method for confirming forklift comfort according to claim 1, characterized in that, The forklift simulation system is designed to address the operational characteristics of forklifts, and standardized simulation analysis is performed based on this system, including: Set up typical operating conditions specific to forklifts based on their operational characteristics; Set uniform simulation boundary conditions based on the operating characteristics of forklifts; Using a software-standard human body database, three human body models were established at the 5th percentile, 50th percentile, and 95th percentile, covering the main body size range of forklift drivers. Establish forklift-specific analytical indicators based on the characteristics of forklift operations.

4. The method for confirming forklift comfort according to claim 3, characterized in that, The forklift's specific typical operating conditions include forward stacking, reversing, and loading / unloading.

5. The method for confirming forklift comfort according to claim 3, characterized in that, The unified simulation boundary conditions include: unloaded vehicle load state and straight road surface conditions under all working conditions.

6. The method for confirming forklift comfort according to claim 4, characterized in that, The forklift-specific analysis metrics include: neck and shoulder joint comfort during reversing, forward and downward field of vision during forward stacking, and lower limb joint movement trajectory during loading and unloading.

7. The method for confirming forklift comfort according to claim 1, characterized in that, The evaluators conducting the standardized subjective evaluation must meet the following conditions simultaneously: The body dimensions cover the 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles; different body types are included, specifically categorized as underweight, normal, and overweight; and the personnel must hold valid forklift operation licenses, with a total of no fewer than 8 people, including experts familiar with the vehicles and ordinary drivers.

8. The method for confirming forklift comfort according to claim 1, characterized in that, The organization employs qualified evaluators to conduct standardized subjective evaluations, including: The subjective evaluation items are determined, including: lower limb comfort, waist and hip comfort, shoulder and neck comfort, upper limb comfort, visual field obstruction, and accessibility; Each of the subjective evaluation items is evaluated, and the evaluation criteria for each subjective evaluation item adopts a scoring system with a score range of 1-5 points: where 1 point is the worst and 5 points is the best. Determine the weight of each of the subjective evaluation items; The subjective evaluation items are weighted and summed to obtain the subjective comprehensive evaluation score of the vehicle model.

9. The method for confirming forklift comfort according to claim 1, characterized in that, The process of fusing simulation analysis data with subjective evaluation data to establish a quantifiable benchmark for forklift comfort includes: Determine the evaluation element set X={X1,X2,X3}, where X1 represents the front valve stem operation element set, X2 represents the mid-valve stem evaluation element set, and X3 represents the multi-functional handrail operation element set. The subjective evaluation results and simulation evaluation results of the human factors engineering under the pre-valve stem operation element set are determined as the first evaluation element set L={L1,L2}, where L1 represents the subjective evaluation result and L2 represents the simulation evaluation result; The subjective evaluation results and simulation evaluation results of the human factors engineering under the central valve stem evaluation element set are determined as the second evaluation element set E={E1,E2}, where E1 represents the subjective evaluation result and E2 represents the simulation evaluation result. The subjective evaluation results and simulation evaluation results of the human-machine engineering under the multi-functional handrail operation element set are determined as the third evaluation element set V={V1,V2}, where V1 represents the subjective evaluation result and V2 represents the simulation evaluation result; Set the weight set W={W1,W2}, where W1 represents the subjective evaluation weight and W2 represents the simulation evaluation result weight; The final score for the vehicle model is calculated using the formulas Q=L×W, R=E×W, and U=V×W. Where Q represents X1: the final score for the operation of the front valve stem, R represents X2: the final score for the operation of the central valve stem, and U represents X3: the final score for the operation of the multi-functional armrest. The final scores of all vehicle models are sorted, and the result of the vehicle model ranked first in each operating posture is determined as the standardization benchmark for subsequent simulations of that posture.

10. The method for confirming forklift comfort according to claim 9, characterized in that, The process of confirming the comfort level of the target forklift based on the forklift comfort quantification benchmark includes: Collect simulation data and subjective evaluation data of the target forklift; The simulation data and subjective evaluation data of the target forklift are compared and analyzed with the quantitative benchmark to assess whether the comfort level of the target forklift meets the standard. Calculate the final score of the target forklift using the formulas Q=L×W, R=E×W, and U=V×W to evaluate the overall comfort level of the target forklift.

Images