Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 3753 – 3758

6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2015) and the
Affiliated Conferences, AHFE 2015

Implementation ofsuitable comfort model for posture and motion

prediction in DHM supported vehicle design
Christian Bergmana, *, Pamela Ruiz Castroa, Dan Högberga, Lars Hansona,b
a
School of Engineering Science, University of Skövde, Box 408, 54128 Skövde, Sweden
b
Scania AB, Södertälje, Sweden

Abstract

Driver-vehicle interaction analyses are done to ensure a successful vehicle design from an ergonomics perspective. Digital Human
Modelling (DHM) tools are often used to support such verifications, particularly at early stages of the product development process.
When verifying that a vehicle design accommodates the diversity of users and tasks, a DHM tool needs to be able to represent
postures and motions that are likely under certain conditions. This functionality is essential so that the tool user will obtain
objective and repeatable simulation results. The DHM tool IMMA (Intelligently Moving Manikins) predicts postures and
motions by using computational methods. This offers the possibility to generate postures and motions that are unique for the
present design conditions. IMMA wasoriginally developed for simulating manual assembly work, whereas the work presented
here is a step towards utilizing the IMMA tool for occupant packaging and related tasks. The objective is a tool for virtual
verification of driver-vehicle interaction that supports and automates the simulation work to a high degree. The prediction
functionality in IMMA is based on the use of optimization algorithms where one important component is the consideration of
comfort level. This paper reports results from an basic investigation of driving postures and available comfort models suitable in
a driving context, and shows initial results of seated posture and motion prediction functionality in the IMMA tool.

©
© 2015
2015TheTheAuthors.
Authors.Published
Publishedbyby
Elsevier B.V.
Elsevier This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
B.V.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of AHFE Conference.
Peer-review under responsibility of AHFE Conference
Keywords:Occupant packaging; DHM; Comfort model

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +46(0)500-44 85 50.

E-mail address: christian.bergman@his.se

2351-9789 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of AHFE Conference
doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.816
3754 Christian Bergman et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 3753 – 3758

1. Introduction

Driver-vehicle interaction analyses are done within product development processes to ensure a successful vehicle
design from an ergonomics perspective. When designing the interior of a car, many criteria need to be satisfied, e.g.
the driver needs a clear line of sight and must be able to reach pedals and steering wheel. More than these essential,
functional needs, the driver also wants to sit and move in the vehicle comfortably. Virtual tools such as Digital
Human Modelling (DHM) are often used to support such verifications. When verifying that a vehicle design
accommodates the diversity of users and tasks, a DHM tool needs to be able to represent postures and motions that
different persons are most likely to assume under certain conditions. This functionality is essential so that the tool
user will obtain objective and repeatable simulation results, i.e. outcomes that do not depend on the DHM tool user’s
own suppositions about drivers’ postures and motions under specific conditions. Such prediction functionality can
be based on the use of optimization algorithms to enable the human model to automatically find a likely seated
posture or motion within the current constraints. One important component in such an algorithm is the consideration
of comfort level. A driving position can be considered as comfortable when primary and secondary controls can be
reached and operated comfortably, displays are easily seen and the all-round vision out of the vehicle is good [1].
There are a number of DHM tools that support comfort based posture prediction and/orevaluation of comfort levels,
e.g. Delmia V6 Human [2], Ramsis [3], Jack [4], AnyBody [5] and Santos [6].The Swedish DHM tool IMMA
(Intelligently Moving Manikins) is a recent addition within this field [7]. IMMApredicts postures and motions by
using computational methods [8]. This offers the possibility to generate postures and motions that are unique for the
present design conditions. For example, to define the need for adjustability of a driver’s seat, the manikin in the
DHM software is given specific constraints; the heels are fixed to the floor, the head-roof clearanceis set to be e.g.
no less than 20 mm etc. (Fig 1a). The software then uses optimization algorithms to adjust joints to find the most
comfortable position for the driver, based on comfort models associated to joint angles. From a number of
simulations with manikins of different anthropometry, the vehicle interior can be designed to optimize the physical
vehicle-driver interaction for the desired proportion of the targeted population. The original version of IMMA was
mainly developed for simulation of manual assembly work whereas the work presented in this paper is a step
towards utilizing the IMMA tool for occupant packaging and related design tasks.
The research approach for this study is to investigate existing knowledge about comfort in driving and then
implement this knowledge into the algorithms, to get initial and basic seated posture and motion prediction
functionality in the IMMA tool. Questions to be answered by the study are: (1) What is the state-of-the-art
knowledge when it comes to classifying comfort in vehicle driving, and (2) Among the existing methods and
models, which one(s) is recommended to be implemented in the IMMA tool to establish a first version of a seated
posture and motion prediction functionality?

Fig. 1.(a) TheIMMA manikin. (b) Sample picture from the driver study showing angle estimation in photo editing software.
 Christian Bergman et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 3753 – 3758 3755

2. Method

The research method includes collection of empirical data from the companies that collaborates in the research
project, as well as literature studies. The collected knowledge is then implemented and tested by the creation of
demonstrators of representative use cases, where this overall research method is utilized in order to direct the need
for further research undertakings related to the IMMA tool development.

2.1. Literature review

Literature and articles about automotive ergonomics were surveyed for information gathering regarding occupant
packaging and comfort in driving. In addition, manuals for present DHM software were consulted for findingsources
that describe comfort based posture prediction or comfort evaluation methods that are used in the software.

2.2. Field tests and empirical data collection

To support the task of findinganappropriate comfort model for different driving scenarios or vehicles, a small
sample of drivers of buses, trucks, construction equipment and cars were interviewed and asked to sit in a
comfortable position in their vehicles. The sample consisted of four bus drivers, five truck drivers, six drivers of
construction vehicles and eight car drivers. The subjects were of ages 22-55 with stature varying from 163 cm to 193
cm. All subjects were male except three female car drivers. It proved difficult to find female drivers of trucks or
construction vehicles. Pictures were taken so that joint angles could be estimated using photo editing software (Fig. 1b).

3. Results

Various studies have defined different sets of comfort/discomfort angle intervals in driving tasks in cars. Rebiffe
[9],Grandjean [10], Tilley and Dreyfuss [11], Krist [12] and Porter and Gyi [13] are studies that are discussed in
[14]. However, since cars these days have features such as power steering, servo-assisted brakes etc., which reduces
demands on the musculoskeletal system, this may mean that the data given in [9,10] from 1969 or 1980 is less
relevant today [13]. Some of these or other datasets are available in DHMtools to evaluate comfort in occupant
packaging.For instance, companies such as AB Volvo uses Dreyfuss’ model from [15] in DelmiaHuman.Joint angle
comfort ranges from various datasets together with the observed joint rangesare shown in Table 1.Note that Krist only
gives an ideal value, not a range.

Table 1.Overview of comfort angle ranges in variousliterature, and calculated minimum and maximum values from observations.

Back-Thigh Knee Ankle Shoulder Elbow Wrist

Reference model Vehicle type Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dreyfuss [15] Heavy machinery 95 100 110 120 90 100 0 35 80 165 - -
Porter and Gyi[13] Cars 90 115 99 138 80 113 19 75 86 164 - -
Hanson et al.[14] Cars 92 109 109 157 90 111 14 68 96 160 159 216
Rebiffe [9] 95 120 95 135 90 110 10 45 80 120 170 190
Krist [12] Cars 99 119 103 22 127 -
Observations Cars 93 106 98 131 80 120 21 60 113 156 152 204
Observations Bus 91 107 84 111 30 56 150 158 150 167
Observations Trucks 86 107 97 121 68 113 24 68 130 156 143 177
Observations Construction 94 108 103 115 68 106 18 45 129 172 109 163

Looking closer at the values for the upper body in Fig. 2, it can be seen that particularly elbow and wrist angle
comfort ranges differbetween various models and observation, especially in large vehicles. This is assumed to bedue
3756 Christian Bergman et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 3753 – 3758

to the size and position of the large steering wheel commonly found in these types of vehicles, compared to the size
and position in cars (Fig 3a).It is apparent that e.g. Krist’s ideal elbow value (127) for car driving is low in
comparison to observed values for buses, trucks or construction vehicles, and hence might not be suitable for
comfort based posture prediction and comfort evaluation in these types of vehicles.
A conclusion that might be drawn from these results is that there is not one particular dataset that is better suited
for posture and motion predictionin vehicles, but rather that the variety of postures in different vehicles means that it
is advantageous to utilize different comfort models for different types of vehicles. Hence, IMMA should allow for a
choice between many different models to predict postures and motions. However, since the objective is also to end up
with a DHM tool with high usability for a variety of users, this functionality does not have to be available for each
individual user, but rather that an interface needs to be developed that enables‘super users’ of the system within a
company to adjust the comfort model data that feeds the optimization algorithms. The corresponding postures for the
mean values of the observed joint angles for cars and buses are illustrated in the IMMA tool in Fig 3b.
The interviews with drivers indicated that in trucks, the drivers might prioritize reach before comfort. Once an
adjustment to a seat or a mirror had been made, it usually stayed that way. The drivers seemed to evaluate comfort on a
“good enough” basis. How the vehicle is used might also affect the driver’s habits. Bus drivers seemed more inclined to
adjust the seating position, since they change buses between drivers on a more regular basis.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

Shoulder

Elbow

Wrist
Angle values in order: Dreyfuss, Porter &Gyi,
Hanson et al., Rebiffe, Krist’s optimum value.
Observations for car (grey), bus, truck and
construction vehicles (black).

Fig. 2.Graphical representation of the data in Table 1. Observations for cars in grey, and buses, trucks and construction vehicles in black.

Fig. 3.(a) Size, angle and position of the steering wheel in a car (left) ora bus (right) affects posture. (b) Corresponding postures illustrated in IMMA.
 Christian Bergman et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 3753 – 3758 3757

Fig. 4. Differences in sight line in truck vs. car (adapted after [14]).

4. Discussion

This study is based on a small sample, but raises some questions about use of existing methods and the need for
further investigation to come up with models based on drivers of larger vehicles. Vision is the primary source of
information intake when driving [16]. Since the design of a truck, a bus or a car is very different, factors such as the
driver’s forward field of view (Fig 4, adapted after [16]) also differ. Also, the need to be able to reach different types
of controls than found in a car, or other types of interaction and tasks needs to be taken into account when designing
for other vehicle types. There is a big difference in the need for visibility and the types of interactions needed to
carry out tasks in e.g. an excavator (operated by levers) and a front loader (large steering wheel). Hanson et al. [14]
argue that many of the joint angle comfort intervals in previously mentioned methods are too narrow, even just for
cars. This leads to the need of different postures when operating different vehicle types.
Also, comfort angles or anthropometric data cannot alone answer all questions. Personal preference arguably
plays a vital role, and if this is not taken into account, results might be misleading and prescribe inappropriate
amounts of adjustability[17].Thecontextof the driving situation is also of importance. When trying to park in a
crowded and busy parking lot, the driver is tenser and would likely want to better see the ground closer to the car
and would lean forward. This driving posture would likely differ from a more relaxed posture when driving on a big,
open road with very little traffic.
This paper focuses on the identification of appropriate comfort models to use in the IMMA tool for the
predictionof drivers’ postures and motionsunder certain conditions. However, after a posture or a motion has been
suggested by the optimization algorithms in the software, it is valuable for the tool user to be able to assess the
resulting comfort levels in the different joints. This information is helpful to judge if a design solution is satisfactory
or if redesign is required. The feature can also be used to compare comfort levels of different design proposals, in
order to identify which one that is best from a comfort perspective. Figure 5 illustrates, on a conceptual level, how
such comfort assessment for a specific posture might be presented to the tool user.

Back-Thigh
8
6
Wrist 4 Knee
2
Left side
0
Right side

Elbow Ankle

Shoulder

Fig. 5.Presentation of comfort assessment results. A higher value represents more comfortable.
3758 Christian Bergman et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 3753 – 3758

Acknowledgements

This work has been made possible with the support from the Knowledge Foundation and by the participating
organizations. This support is gratefully acknowledged.

References

[1] Gkikas, N. Automotive ergonomics. Boca Raton: CRC Press. 2013.

[2] Fortin, C., Gilbert, R., Beuter, A., Laurent, F., Schiettekatte, J., Carrier, R. and Decamplain, B. 1990. SAFEWORK: a microcomputer-aided
workstation design and analysis. New advances and future developments. Computer-aided ergonomics, 157-180.
[3] Seidl, A., RAMSIS - A New CAD-Tool for Ergonomic Analysis of Vehicles Developed for the German Automotive Industry, SAE Technical
Paper 970088, 1997
[4] Badler, N. I., Phillips, C. B., Webber, B. L. Simulating Humans: Computer Graphics, Animation, and Control. Oxford Univ. Press,1993.
[5] Rasmussen, J., VonDrak, V., Damsgaard, M., DeZee, M., Christensen, S. T., Dostal, Z. The Anybody project - Computer analysis of the
human body. Biomechanics of Man, (2002) pp270-274.
[6] Abdel-Malek, K., Yang, J., Marler, T., Beck, S., Mathai, A., Zhou, X., Patrick, A. and Arora, J.. Towards a new generation of virtual humans.
International Journal of Human Factors Modelling and Simulation, 1 (2006), pp 2-39.
[7] Hanson, L., Högberg, D., Carlson, J.S., Bohlin, R., Brolin, E., Delfs, N., Mårdberg, P., Gustafsson, S., Keyvani, A., Rhen, I-M. IMMA –
Intelligently moving manikins in automotive applications, Proceeding of ISHS 2014, Third International Summit on Human Simulation,
Japan, May 2014.
[8] Bohlin, R., Delfs, N., Hanson L., Högberg, D., Carlson, J.S. Automatic Creation of Virtual Manikin Motions Maximizing Comfort in Manual
Assembly Processes. Proceedings of the 4th CIRP Conference On Assembly Technologies And Systems, Hu, S.J. (Ed.), USA, May 2012,
pp. 209-212. 2012.
[9] Rebiffe, R. An ergonomic study of arrangement of the driving positions in motorcars, Proceedings of Symposium on Sitting Posture, Zurich,
Switzerland, (1969) pp.132–147
[10] Grandjean, E. Sitting posture of car drivers from the point of view of ergonomics, in Grandjean, E. (Ed.): Human Factors in Transport
Research, Part 1, London, Taylor & Francis, 1980.
[11] Tilley, A., Dreyfuss, H. The Measure of Man and Woman, Human factors design, Whitney Library of Design, New York, USA, 1993.
[12] Krist., R. Modellierung des Sitzkomforts - eine experimentelle Studie, Lehrstuhl für Ergonomie, Technical University Munich, Munich,
1993.
[13] Porter, J.M., Gyi, D.E. Exploring the optimum posture for driver comfort. Int. J. of Vehicle Design, Vol 19, No 3, (1998) pp. 255-266
[14] Hanson, L., Sperling, L., Akselsson, R. Preferred car driving posture using 3-D information, Int. J. Vehicle Design, Vol. 42, Nos. 1/2, (2006)
154–169.
[15] Tilley, A.R. The Measure of Man and Woman: Human Factors in Design. New York: Wiley, 2002.
[16] Peacock J., Karwowski W. Automotive ergonomics. London: Taylor & Francis, 1993.
[17] Garneau C., Parkinson M. Including Preference in Anthropometry-Driven Models for Design. J Mech Des. 2009;131(10):101006.