Ergonomicsfor Cars

You might also like

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 39

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/277693801

Ergonomics for Passenger Cars

Chapter · October 2014


DOI: 10.1002/9781118354179.auto247

CITATIONS READS
2 24,734

2 authors, including:

Karl Siebertz
Ford Motor Company
91 PUBLICATIONS 600 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Karl Siebertz on 02 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

Ergonomics for Passenger Cars


Clemens Marek, Ford Werke Köln & Karl Siebertz, Ford Forschungszentrum Aachen

Introduction
Definition of Ergonomics

The term “ergonomics” consists of two parts, both of them with Greek origin. “Ergon” can be interpreted
as “the worker who has accomplished something” or simply as “work”. “Nomos” relates to the existing
laws and conventions in the context of the human capabilities (Bhise, 2012). In other words: respect the
human limits in the working environment. First attempts to regulate working conditions trace back to
England in 1802, with the Morals and Health Act to protect children. Similar regulations have been rolled
out in Prussia in 1839 and 1853. Schmidtke (1989) mentions fundamental ergonomic studies between
1850 and 1920 by Lavoisier, Lahy and Marey as well as basic research in physiology by Gustav Fechner in
1860. Industrial ergonomics established in the 1920s and 30s. Automotive ergonomics developed in the
1950s onwards.

Driving a vehicle is a demanding task, even if it is not done as a profession. Ergonomics therefore plays
an important role during the development process. Human limits are manifold, which makes ergonomics
a multi-disciplinary task. Capacity and demand need to be considered simultaneously. A task can only be
performed if the individual human capacity exceeds the demand of the particular task (Kroemer, 1997).
What are the limits? A number of constraints are pure geometrical and caused by the dimension of the
human body, which is a science of its own, called “Anthropometry”. Dempster (1955) investigated the
space requirements of the seated operator. Internal loads of the human body build the next category of
constraints. The operation of the vehicle requires a mechanical interaction. Biomechanics is the
dedicated science for that. Human senses are remarkably good, so good that their limits are not always
understood. Vision is of course the most important sense in this context, but also hearing and
proprioception are relevant for a driver. Human senses are investigated in “Physiology “ (Schmidt, 2005).
Even if the driver can reach everything, the operational forces are in the perfect range and the senses
can master the situation, there is still the need to understand how the system works and the duty to
come up with the right decision in the given time. Cognitive limits are difficult to investigate. Psychology
is in the lead of this field, which is interdisciplinary itself.

geometrical Anthropometry

mechanical Biomechanics
performance limits
reception Physiology

cognitive Psychology

Figure: Categories of human performance limits and relevant scientific fields.


Rev 130531 1
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

The individual capacity depends on a vast number of parameters, but even then it is not constant. Age,
training, boundary conditions, fatigue and motivation come into play. For engineers it is sometimes
difficult to accept this large spectrum, which causes some uncertainty. However, this is “the nature of
the beast”. Decades of scientific work are condensed in ergonomic rules, tables and simplified functions
(Salvendy, 2006 and Schmidtke, 1989). Typically these have been generated with test series on a
sufficient number of subjects and under very controlled conditions. This is always a very good starting
point and sometimes the only tangible instrument at all. Recent studies are more and more CAE driven
(Seidl, 1994). Main advantage of this approach is a wider range of validity compared to experiments that
only explain the tested conditions. However, the human body is too complex to be squeezed into a single
model. Each model therefore has limits, which are not always obvious. A validation of the model is
essential and any extrapolation beyond the scope of the model will be misleading.

Figure: RAMSIS model to investigate the package conditions. (Printed with permission
from Human Solutions, Kaiserslautern, Germany.)

Automotive Context

Developing the technical ingredients of a vehicle is easy. Engineering is a straight forward science that
follows rules of physics, math and chemistry. The interesting part starts when it comes to fit the human
into the machine. Knowing and understanding the human is the real challenge. For this reason a vehicle
is most often developed using known and proven technology in known and proven combinations. So, in
most cases, there is already something to build on, a structure or platform that must be reconfigured or

Rev 130531 2
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

slightly altered. When there is nothing to start with but a clean sheet of paper, then it is good to know all
the ingredients, requirements and prerequisites needed to develop a vehicle architecture that meets
customers’ expectations.

Science
As indicated, ergonomics is a science that combines various branches of science into what is the
approach to making the work environment fit the user. Here the work environment is not used in the
traditional sense but more translated into the inside of a vehicle.
Customer
Knowing the customer is most important in this context. Here customer knowledge goes beyond
personal tastes. Customers are divers in their body dimensions, physical constitution and cognitive
abilities.
Market
Vehicles for personal transportation are being sold in many markets. Most of those share common
requirements, but that is not the rule. For various reasons different rules and requirements exist in
different markets. In order to be compliant to these rules, it is important to be aware of and to comply
with those rules.

Interaction Models

It is always helpful to start with a model to get a quick understanding and overview over a system. The
operator is the driver who acts in a constant engagement with the machine, here the vehicle. This
system is part of the environment in which the driver and the vehicle are interacting.

Figure: A model of the Human Machine Interface or HMI. (Ford Motor Company)

The environment constantly sends out signals to the driver which are received and processed via the
human senses. Of those five senses, probably sight, hearing and touch are the most relevant for vehicle
operation. Also see under ‘Human Physiology’.

Rev 130531 3
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

Once the external inputs are received, the brain initiates actions or interactions with the vehicle. The
reactions of the vehicle are being monitored and in a feedback loop overlaid with the original intention
of the driver.

Figure: The Input/Output Model applied to vehicle control operation (Ford Motor
Company)

Human capability and performance

Human capability is limited. Depending on training, age and physical condition, the driver may encounter
his or her own limits sooner or later. This condition is also related to comfort. The driver may feel at ease
as long as all external factors do not add up to create an uncomfortable driving situation or unfavorable
conditions over an extended time period.

Log S
B‘

Max. Burden

Log T
Comfort Threshold
Figure: The relationship of sustained stress S over duration T and the subjective
burden B’. (Printed with permission from Prof. H. Bubb)

Rev 130531 4
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

International Standards
Standards help in the definition of vehicle parameters, components and attributes. There are
engineering standards that can be used and altered to fit specific needs and requirements of the
engineer and there are legal requirements that cannot be altered and must be followed by the engineer.
Both have their roots in subject matter expert and peer groups that develop these standards, sometimes
over a number of years. These standards are also called and used as recommended practices.

SAE standards represent the largest collection of standards defined for vehicle development. The vehicle
concept engineer should be familiar with a few that represent the basic set of SAE standard:

• J1100 defines common rules for how vehicle dimensions are to be determined
• J826 describes two representations of the human inside the vehicle
• J1516 and J1517 position the human inside the vehicle
• J941 shows the definition of the eyellipse, the theoretical position of the drivers eyes
• J1052 provides an exclusion zone for the occupants heads
• J287 allows a determination of the drivers reach zones

These zones have been determined via initial representative anthropometric studies and have been
complemented and improved by further data collection over time. The most recent effort resulted in a
complete update of the relevant standards. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to look at and discuss both as
these are still being used side by side.

SAE J1100

This standard provides a system of a defined nomenclature to describe vehicle dimensions. A


combination of letters and numerals helps the engineer to easily identify interior and exterior as well as
volume and some surface dimensions. It all starts with the 3-dimensional reference system as shown in
figure xxx.

Figure: The three dimensional reference system (Ford Motor Company)

Rev 130531 5
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

The vehicle is positioned such that the Y-plane determines the intersection at the exact middle of the
vehicle, sometimes called the Y0 section.

The origin point is placed in front and below the vehicle for convenience and ensures that X and Z
sections always carry a positive station.

Length dimensions use the letter L and are being measured along the X-axis. Likewise, W is being used
for Width dimensions and measured along the Y-axis. Finally, H is being used for height dimensions and
measured along the Z-axis.

The second part of this code system is the number, single and double digit numbers identify interior
dimensions. Three digit numbers are being used for external dimensions, cargo volumes and glazed
surfaces. Figure xxx gives an overview of the possible combinations for unique identifier codes.

ALPHA PREFIXES
Letter Meaning

L Length measurements (longitudinal distance), or location of X coordinate


W Width measurements (cross car distance), or location of Y coordinate
H Height measurements or location of Z coordinate
A Angular measurement
PL Lengths associated with pedal and pedal usage
PW Widths associated with pedal and pedal usage
PH Heights associated with pedal and pedal usage
SL Lengths associated with seats
SW Widths associated with seats
SH Heights associated with seats
TL Lengths defining H-point locations/travel
TH Heights defining H-point locations/travel
PD Passenger distribution
PV Passenger volume indices
V Luggage volume and cargo volume indices
IV Interior volume indices
S Surface area measurements
D Diameter measurements
F Planar area measurments

NUMERIC SCHEME

Number range Type of dimension

1 - 99 Interior dimensions
100 - 199 Exterior dimensions
200 - 299 Cargo, luggage or rear access compartments
400 - 599 Dimensions unique to trucks, vans, sport utility vehicles, etc.

Rev 130531 6
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

J1100 has been updated to make the code system even more use friendly. For those codes that are to be
used repeatedly, mainly applicable to interior dimensions, a suffix has been introduced to label specific
rows. For an example, the code for seat height is H 30 (H for height dimensions, two digit number for
interior dimensions), likewise the code for the first row of seats is H30-1, for the third row of seats, it is
H30-3. Finally, J1100 provides guidance for determination of critical measurement locations including
specific sections and definition of the Daylight Opening (DLO).

SAE J826

As J1100 defines technical dimensions, J826 defines the human inside the vehicle. There are two devices.
One is the CAD model, either as a 2- or 3-dimensionsonal figure. The second one is a physical device with
a defined weight. Both devices share the same dimensions with a separate torso and length adjustable
legs. The torso is fixed in its size and represents a 50th percentile torso length. The leg segments can be
adjusted to represent 95th, 50th or 10th percentile anthropometric dimensions.

Figure: The 2D and 3D Manikins/HPM I and HPD I. (Printed with permission from SAE)

Rev 130531 7
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

The CAD model is called the H-Point Device or HPD and is being used for the basic concept layout. It
features important hard points like the hip center H-point, the ball of foot and the heel point. Also, the
torso line is defined. Consequently, the H-Point Machine HPM is used to verify actual interior
dimensions inside the vehicle. Thus it supports concept verification with prototypes as well as enables
benchmarking of existing vehicles. It features two buttons, one on either side of the seat pan to measure
the H-point, a headroom probe and landing surfaces to take exact measurements of the torso and thigh
angles.

SAE J1516 and J1517

The HPD needs to be positioned inside the vehicle in relationship to the accelerator paddle and the seat.
At the center of the hip, the HPD features the so-called H-point. This point is defined as the hip center
and the torso rotation point. Assuming that a car seat is adjustable to accommodate various sizes of
drivers, the H-point moves relative with the seat. The concepts engineer however needs a fixed
reference point. Therefore the Seating Reference Point (SgRP) has been established and defined. SAE
J1516 establishes the recommended standard SgRP which accommodates the 95th percentile HPD. SAE
J1517 goes beyond and defines the so-called accommodation range for a 2.5th to a 97.5th percentile
occupant.

The formula for the calculation of the 95th percentile SgRP with x95 being the distance between the
accelerator actuation point and z being the seat height or H30-1 (according to SAE J1100) is shown here:

ܺଽହ = 913.7 + 0.672316 Z – 0.0019553 ܼ ଶ

The formulae for the extended accommodation range according to J1517 are shown here:

ܺଽ଻.ହ= 936.6 + 0.613879 Z – 0.00186247 ܼ ଶ

ܺଽହ = 913.7 + 0.672316 Z – 0.0019553 ܼ ଶ

ܺଽ଴ = 885.0 + 0.735374 Z – 0.00201650 Z2

ܺହ଴ = 793.7 + 0.903387 Z – 0.00225518 Z2

ܺଵ଴ = 715.9 + 0.968793 Z – 0.00228674 Z2

ܺହ = 692.6 + 0.981427 Z – 0.00226230 Z2

ܺଶ.ହ= 687.1 + 0.895336 Z – 0.00210494 Z2

SAE J941

This recommended practice covers the location of the human eyes. It is not so much a fixed location of
eye points but rather a statistical distribution. Therefore a 95th and a 99th percentile eyellipse (eye and
ellipse) were defined. Based on initial research of the eye point locations of various statured drivers,
these were derived using the so called tangent cutoff method. Using this method, the concept engineer
can determine the visibility performance of a concept for a given population. Figure xxx shows how the

Rev 130531 8
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

eyellipses have been derived from a distribution of eye points with the 99th percentile eyellipse being the
largest, however still not capturing a large amount of eye locations.

Figure: Development of the 99th, 95th, 90th and 80th percentile eyellipse. (Ford Motor
Company)
Figure xxx demonstrates how the tangent cut off method is being used to determine up-vision for the
95th percentile of the driver population. A tangent is drawn between the top of the eyellipse and the
bottom of the roof rail section in front of the driver. 95 % of eye points are now located below the
tangent line.

Front header structure

95%ile eyellipse

Figure: Methodology used to determine the 95%ile up vision angle using the tangent
cut off method. (Ford Motor Company)

Rev 130531 9
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

Figure xxx shows a 3D view of the eyellipses for both eyes. They overlap and are slightly tilted
forward.

Figure: Isometric view of the left and right eyellipse. (Printed with permission from
SAE)

Finally, SAE J941 provides a guide how to position the eyellipse relative to the drivers SgRP. Here the
reference or preferred back angle is 25°. The work line of the eyellipse is then positioned 635 mm above
the SgRP. With smaller back angles (L40), the eyellipse will move further up and forward, with larger
back angles down and rearward.

Figure: Positioning of the SAE eyellipse. (Printed with permission from SAE)

Rev 130531 10
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

SAE J1052

SAE J1052 completes the definition of the drivers’ space towards the headlining and roof. It defines a
95th and 99th percentile head contour that is used as a tangent cutoff line. The head contour for fixed
seats resembles a half circle, the head contour for moving seats (like the front row seats) is more
stretched and traces the shape of the eyellipse. Figure xxx shows the head contour for fixed seats, figure
xxx demonstrates the relationship between the head contour for fixed seats and the eyellipse leading to
the moving seat contour.

Figure: The 95th percentile SAE head contour for fixed seats. (Printed with permission
from SAE)

Figure: The SAE head contour for moving seats, using the 95th percentile eyellipse.
(Printed with permission from SAE)

SAE J287

Having defined the drivers’ basic needs for space, it is now useful to look at the boundaries for reach to
controls. SAE J287 establishes the method for determination of reach envelopes. Based on a set of

Rev 130531 11
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

package dimensions, population gender distribution and the type of restraint, this standard offers the
method to calculate drivers’ reach relative to the SgRP.

Package factor G is taking certain key dimension like back angle and distance to pedals and steering
wheel into consideration. With this factor and the appropriate gender mix, a table is being selected that
offers a grid of longitudinal and vertical dimensions relative to the SgRP planes.

Figure: Factor G is calculated using these package parameters. (Printed with


permission from SAE)

Figure: Table 25mm is the table of longitudinal, transversal and vertical dimensions for
a 50% female/50% male gender distribution and a 3-point safety belt. Factor G was
calculated to lie between -1.25 and -0.75. (Printed with permission from SAE)

Rev 130531 12
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

The new ASPECT manikin

Towards the end of the 1990ies, SAE established a team to replace the HPM and HPD. Over the years it
had become apparent that the old devices had some considerable deficiencies with regards to usability
and accuracy. The new ASPECT manikin was introduced as HPM II in 2010 and has been specified by SAE
J4002 and subsequently in ISO 20176.

Some of the HPM II characteristics remained however. It still weighs 75 kg and the shape of the seat
cushion and torso shell resembles the old HPM. The biggest difference is exactly there in the torso. It
consists of three parts that allow a closer alignment with the actual seat back contour. The lumbar
prominence can be determined via the moving lordosis section of the HPM II torso. Two more
differences are important:

• An independent seat cushion pan allows the measurement of the seat cushion angle, an
important characteristic for seat comfort definition
• The foot and shoe device can be used independent of cushion angle and allows for a more
meaningful measurement of the pedal position relative to the SgRP

Both, the old HPM and the new HPM II exist in parallel, concepts engineers are free to use either one as
the basis for their concept layouts.

Figure: The individual parts of the HPM II with seat cushion pan, back pan and foot/leg
apparatus. (Printed with permission from SAE)

International Standards

Due to the increased globalization, engineering standards have very much interrelated. SAE
standards seem to be the source for most national and international standards. DIN and BS often are
drawing their definitions from SAE.

Finally the ISO organization brings together national and international work groups that develop
ISO standards, mostly from already existing rules, refined for international use by global committees. The

Rev 130531 13
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

end products are international standards that often are used as the basis for legal requirements like
UNECE.

Some of the most important standards are defining mirror vision, wiped field and pedal spacing:

Figure: 2003/97/EC defines the area behind a vehicle as a zone that is required to be
seen via the exterior mirrors. The zones represent passing or passed vehicles. (Adopted
from ECE)

Figure: 78/318/EEC describes the wiped field, Area A on the left hand side is required
to be wiped by 98%, Area B needs to be wiped by 80%. (Adopted from ECE)

Rev 130531 14
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

Figure: The requirement for distances between pedals is defined in ECE 35. Note that
the distance between brake and accelerator pedal is very much limited. Therefore
build tolerances need to be taken care of. (Adopted from ECE)

Internal Standards

Most automotive manufacturers can draw from a wealth of experience and therefore have their
own internal standards. In general, it can be determined that these internal standards oftentimes use
national or international standards as a basis and enhance these by certain best practices based on
experience and research. It is their nature that these internal standards are more strict and severe as
some of the international standards or even legal requirements often just formulate a framework for
specific standards. Therefore internal standards lend themselves as unique identifiers for brands.

Public Domain Tests

These tests are not necessarily related to legal requirements but can serve as customer selection
criteria. To name a few, EURO NCAP is a public domain test that looks at the crash performance, hence
passenger protection capability of vehicles. The test uses star ratings and points to identify the best
performers. Another one is Consumer Reports. This is a magazine that is very popular for purchasing
decisions of US customers. Based on a set of criteria, ratings are established and communicated via
regular reports.

These are only two of many. As a consequence, it is worthwhile understanding the rating criteria
and catering to them. A high score will drive purchasing decisions, an opportunity that cannot be
disregarded.

Rev 130531 15
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

Knowledge about the Human Body


Anthropometry
As already mentioned, anthropometry is a science of its own. Standardized measurement protocols with
clearly defined test codes exist to create a globally usable database of human dimensions. Figure xxx
shows an excerpt of an anthropometric database with some of the critical dimensions useful for vehicle
occupant definition. These databases usually add the statistical distribution values, here 5th to 95th
percentile dimensions.

Figure: Anthropometric data tables: results for buttock-knee length measurements.


(From Kantowitz/Sorkin. Printed with permission from Wiley, 1983)

Rev 130531 16
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

Figure: Anthropometric measurement devices: fixture to measure functional arm


reach. (From Kantowitz/Sorkin. Printed with permission from Wiley, 1983)

Anatomical variation
Unique challenges for the concept developer represent the so-called somatotypes. To understand the
challenge it is also important to understand that no 95th percentile is like another 95th percentile stature.
Looking at the dimensions of certain body parts that make the human, torso, legs and head, there is a
large variation between individuals. In other words, comparing two 95th percentile males, one might
have very long legs and a short torso whereas the other one might have shorter legs and a long torso.
(Please compare with section ‘user collective’)
Percentiles and variation in strength
Anatomical research has proven that there is a correlation between body dimensions. Thus it is safe to
assume that a smaller person has smaller extremities. Using the correlation factors, the concept
developer can derive important dimensions for a concept layout by just knowing the size of the stature
of a certain percentile.
This is however not true for a person’s strength. There is no correlation since strength depends on
individual physical characteristics, training, gender and age. Figure xxx shows the relationship between
median strength levels and gender. It also demonstrates the effect of age, a steady, proportional decline
over the years.

Rev 130531 17
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

Maximum Strength in %

Age
Figure: The relationship between of age related to % maximum strength for males and
females (Adopted by Ford Motor Company after Hettinger, 1960)

Populations and their properties


Sources of information
As implied, it is mandatory to gather a lot of information on the driver population when working
on a vehicle concept that is suitable for a large customer group.
Sources of information on anthropometric data are those tables that are available in human
factors handbooks. Unfortunately, these are often a bit outdated and their usability is limited. Even more
useful are those that databases that are attached to human model CAE tool. These are integrated into
the tool and deliver representative manikins that offer a high degree of flexibility.
Importance of anthropometric information
Anthropometric data is needed to define the boundaries of a concept, as will be discussed later,
it supports finding the solution to the developers challenge: defining an occupant concept that
accommodates a diversity of a number of user populations.

Biomechanics
The human body has been optimized for the traditional life, dominated by physical activity.
Vehicle operation was not part of the evolutionary plan. Drivers and passengers might therefore have
difficulties to perform the required motion tasks or experience discomfort in static seating positions. The
same external operational force (e.g. pulling a handbrake) will produce totally different internal loads for
each driver, depending on the specific anatomy. A mismatch between individual capacity and the
demand of the motion task will causes issues. This is the link between ergonomics and biomechanics.

Rev 130531 18
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

Typical ergonomic issues related to the locomotor system are:

1. Muscular effort is too high to perform the task. This could, for instance, apply to lift-gates, luggage
handling or mechanical handbrakes. It is more of an issue for elderly people as they often,
simultaneously, have limitations of the joint movement range.
2. Kinematics of the motion task is too restricted. Ingress and egress are typical examples, but also the
folding of the rear seats or luggage handling can fall into this category. A kinematic restriction might
be caused by the vehicle package, but also a limited range of joint motion in the human body (e.g.
stiff knee) can create a motion task which is not possible for the individual subject. A suboptimal
movement pattern will increase the muscular load and might shift it beyond the personal limit.
3. Muscular efforts are too high to fulfil a task over the required time. This applies for all control tasks
such as steering and pedal operation. After just one hour, the maximum muscle force drops down to
less than ten percent of the short-term maximum force. Therefore, even low activation levels can
become critical.
4. A lack of postural support. The muscles become over-loaded after a certain time (sitting in the seat)
and cannot stabilize the body any more. This leads to fatigue and higher loads on the passive
locomotor system. Problems with cartilage (e.g. vertebral discs) and ligaments are resulting long-
term consequences.
5. Activation levels are too low or have the wrong characteristics in order to fulfil the control task. These
issues are a little more complicated because the goal is not simply to reduce the effort. The driver is
part of the man-machine control system, at least until auto-pilots become standard in our vehicles.
Using the current vehicle layout, the entire control communication (steering, shifting, braking,
accelerate) relies on the human locomotor system's input. The control communication is
bidirectional: The driver submits commands through mechanical forces or torques and the vehicle
gives feedback through the same control elements. Unfortunately, the driver moves during driving
(probably the original reason to use the car) resulting in dynamic loads, on the same extremities that
are used to operate the controls.
1

Figure: Muscle fatigue. The maximum muscle


muscle activity

force can only be generated for a short time, due


to metabolic constraints. (fatigue model from
Ford, validated against data from Niemi et al.)
0,1
0

0 time [s] 1000

Rev 130531 19
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

Biomechanics offers analytical tools to analyse how difficult a specific driving tasks will be,
depending on vehicle parameters and the individual subject. This is a real challenge because the human
locomotor system consists of more than 200 bones, connected with various kinds of joints and more
than 600 muscles which can be activated independently. Adding all degrees of freedom in the human
skeleton, the total number will be significantly smaller than the number of skeletal muscles. In
mathematical terms, this means that the equation system is indeterminate. In physiological terms, this
means that the human body has several options to recruit the muscles and still fulfil the same movement
task. How the muscular loads are distributed within the human body is not just a question of energy
expenditure or relative muscle tension (related to the available cross section). Innervation speed and the
mechanical loads in bones and ligaments (the passive part) are relevant as well (Pauwels, 1965 and
Siebertz, 1994). Many muscles cross two joints, others only one joint. Tendons are in place to optimize
the effective lever arms and introduce wrapping points in the line of action, if a simple straight line
would not be ideal for the human body. A complex system of ligaments is needed to utilize different
bones and allow for the right amount of movement. For instance, the knee joint would almost fall apart
without ligaments since the contacting bone surfaces of the femur (long bone of the upper leg) and tibia
(long bone of the lower leg) are not congruent (Schünke, 2004).

Figure: AnyBody, a CAE tool to model the human locomotor system. External loads are
balanced with internal loads and there are many more muscles than degrees of freedom to
move. (Printed with permission from John Rasmussen, University of Aalborg, Denmark.)

Human gait analysis has a long history in Biomechanics (Winter, 2005) and most of the current
methods are derived from this field. Over the decades many these tools evolved from undocumented
unique applications to affordable and easy to use turnkey solutions. There is a clear trend to include
more analytical tools (originating from Biomechanics) in automotive ergonomics to provide guidance
earlier in the development process and to quantify benefits of ergonomic improvements.

Kinematic motion analysis is helpful to investigate how people perform complex tasks such as
ingress/egress. Despite the fact that motion patterns are very individual, there are general mechanisms,
e.g. the use of a planning level, guiding level and stabilization level (Cherednichenko, 2008). Depending

Rev 130531 20
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

on vehicle design parameters such as door opening height or step over height, many people change their
movement pattern completely. Motion analysis also builds the backbone of further biomechanical
analysis with CAE models. A multi-segment model of the human body is the underlying assumption to
solve the resulting system of equations (Zatsiorsky, 1998). Output is a reproducible description of the
kinematics in terms of joint angles or joint centre movement.

Figure: Motion analysis of the vehicle


ingress. Based on real 3-D motion capture,
the joint motions of a segmented surrogate
model can be described and used for further
mathematical analysis. (Ford)

Skin movement and loose clothing are critical. A 3D reconstruction requires at least two
independent unobstructed views, which can be difficult to obtain inside the vehicle. A robust motion
tracking works with a set of four or more synchronized cameras to make sure that at least two views are
available at any time. The redundancy also reduces errors due to optical distortion. Video-based systems
and infrared-based systems with passive markers are current state of the art. The link between marker
trajectories and motion of the kinematic model is one of the key issues in practice. However, new
algorithms have been developed for that (Anderson, 2009). Future systems might even utilize pattern
recognition and make markers obsolete.

Figure: Typical experimental setup of


3D motion capture. Visual
obstructions need to be removed.
(Ford)

In general, muscle and joint forces cannot be measured. It would require very difficult invasive
methods to implant force transducers into the human body (which has been done in the past, but it will
never be relevant for automotive applications). However, the electrical innervation of muscles can be

Rev 130531 21
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

traced (De Luca, 1997) using the so called Electromyography (EMG). In this context only a non-invasive
surface Electromyography (EMG) makes sense. Small electrodes are attached to the skin and capture
electrical signals in the range of millivolts. For medical applications or sport science, there is also the
option to reach the deeper layers of muscles with thin needle electrodes. From EMG signals it is possible
to judge about the activity of certain muscles and their state of fatigue, but it does not allow conclusions
about the absolute muscle force.

Biceps
Test: EMG envelope Figure: Sample result from the study
CAE: muscular power
1 mentioned above. Post-processed
EMG signal vs. CAE prediction of the
normalized value

0.8
biceps force. Both curves are
0.6 normalized to the individual
maximum. Only the shape of the
0.4
curves can be compared. (Ford)
0.2

0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
time in s

External forces can be measured with conventional force transducers. For a full body analysis it is
required to measure all external forces acting on the human body, not just the forces acting on the
upper or lower extremities. Unlike in a crash event, the voluntary muscular activity plays a dominant role
in slow and controlled movements. The CAE method of choice is therefore the so-called “inverse-
dynamics” with experimental input related to kinematics and external forces. Required internal forces
from the muscles to fulfil this motion task are then the output of the CAE tool.

Figure: AnyBody Car-Driver-Model by Ford (Siebertz 2007). External


loads and human body movement need to be provided via
experiment. The CAE model is then able to calculate all required
muscle forces for this particular motion task.
Rev 130531 22
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

Human Physiology

Physiology explains how the human body functions. This is of course relevant knowledge for
ergonomics, in particular anything related to the human senses. It would exceed the scope of this
chapter to present a comprehensive overview. There are many good books available in all languages and
with very explanatory illustrations. Anyone who is seriously interested in ergonomics should take a closer
look.

Vision is clearly the most important sense for the driver in order to fulfil the driving task.
Watching the traffic has always been the duty of the driver. In addition, the largest portion of vehicle
related information is presented via the visual channel. There are several analogies between the human
eye and a digital camera, starting with the receptors. Red, green and blue receptors (cones) are used for
colour vision. Each of the receptor types has a specific spectral sensitivity curve (Schmidt, 2005). Like in a
photographic sensor, there is a certain sensitivity and dark noise. As a side effect of these spectral
sensitivity curves, the optical performance depends on light intensity and the wavelength. “High
Dynamic Range” (HDR) is a lot older than digital photography suggests. The human eye simultaneously
works with high sensitivity cells (rods). Their spectral sensitivity curve lies between the curves of the blue
cones and the green cones (Kokoschka, 2003). The detected image is always a composition of the signals
from all four cell types. The overall level of sensitivity can adjust to the lighting conditions in a certain
range, similar to the ISO setting of a digital sensor. However, this adjustment is rather slow. Most of the
cones are in the centre. 6 million cones and 120 million rods would deliver more information than a
human brain can handle. Signal processing takes place in neurons and basically converts sequences of
pictures to contrasts (black-white, red-green, blue-yellow) and changes over time (Haken, 1992,
Silbernagl, 2012). Vision is not just the result of static pictures. The human eyes continuously scan the
environment in small movements. A spatial picture is composed by the binocular vision through the two
eyes. The focal adjustment works via a change of the refraction, which takes some time and degrades
significantly after an age of 40. The aperture is in the range of 2.5-12, depending on the light intensity
and on age (approx. 4-12). The average focal length is about 22mm. The “sensor diagonal” is
approximately 40mm, but only very few cells are on the outside. For an ergonomic design it is important
to know and to respect the physiological limits of resolution, acuity, colour vision, sensitivity, focal
adjustment, adaptation speed and contrast.

Reading is a complex process that starts with the (pattern) recognition of letters. Intensive
research has been conducted in the past to optimize fonts for readability, mainly to enable the failsafe
recognition of road signs. Needless to say that Typography is a science of its own. Herrmann (2010)
investigated several dedicated fonts for road signs around the world and created a new font, called
“Wayfinding sans”.

Rev 130531 23
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

Figure: Fonts can be optimized for


readability. The lowest word is typed in a
special font called: Wayfinding Sans.
(Printed with permission from Ralf
Herrmann, Weimar, Germany)

Hearing and orientation are crucial to survive in nature. Eyes can be closed, but ears are always
open, for good reasons. 20-20kHz is the nominal frequency range, but in age the upper limit shifts
dramatically (10kHz, or lower). As a result, separation of different voices becomes a lot more difficult.
Hearing in general can degrade, as well as the ability to locate the source of the sound. Hearing and
acceleration are sensed in the vestibular organ. This “g-sensor” and the visual impression merge to a
sense for the absolute orientation of the head.

The relative orientation of the body segments to each other are sensed via proprioception, using
a large number of natural strain gauges, mainly in the muscle spindles. Proprioception plays a major role
in motor control. Most people will know the simple sobriety test: Touch your nose with eyes closed.
Alcohol can raise the typical tolerance of 20mm to a much higher value. Precise movement can be
trained. There is clear evidence for a significant learning potential, see Goble (2010). However, difficult
movements will take more time, even for trained subjects. Bhise (2012) explains the so called Fitt’s law
of hand motion. The relevance of non-visual information for the driving task has been investigated by
Sainio (2007) in cooperation with Ford. Icy road conditions are very frequent in Finland. It is therefore
important to “feel the grip”. The human eyes can only detect the current location, not the acceleration.
A significant fraction of the information for the driver is the detection of vehicle acceleration via
mechanical coupling to the seat and the human vestibular organ.

The human locomotor system utilizes an army of biological strain gauges in the muscles, joint
position sensors, accelerometers, force sensors, vision and more via “sensor fusion”. Without such
mechanisms it would be completely impossible to walk or perform other movement tasks e.g. play
tennis. Driving a car takes advantage of the sophisticated control features that our body offers. In a
sense, the driver becomes part of a symbiotic man-machine system. The resulting cognitive workload
depends on the information density, the way the information is presented, training, the required
precision and other factors. Driving is a chain of perception, signal processing, decision, action and
control of the effect. Like in any chain, the weakest link will determine the overall strength.

Human Vibrations and Dynamic Seating Comfort

Beside ergonomic and static seating aspects is the dynamic seating comfort accepted to be one of the
most important properties of a passenger car in terms of customer acceptance. Thereby are vibrations in
the focus that act on the occupant in various ways. It is commonly known that vertical accelerations on
top of the seat cushion, i.e. between seat and occupant, have the most influence on the occupant’s

Rev 130531 24
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

comfort impressions. Accordingly is the seat-transfer-function, defined as the quotient of the vertical
vibration at the cushion surface divided by the exposition at the seat rail, the most important quantity to
evaluate the seat designs.

For determining the seat transfer function in the real or in the virtual domain the occupied seat must be
investigated as the dynamic properties of the human body influence the behaviour of the complete
system. An accepted value for describing the dynamic behaviour of the human body is the apparent
mass which is defined by:

M ( Ω) = F(Ω ) / a(Ω )

The main characteristics are different for the percentiles f05, m50 and m95 which enables a classification
of the dynamic behaviour with respect to the anthropometry.
Apparent Mass [kg]

Frequency [Hz]

Figure: Measurement results of apparent mass for test persons from percentile f05, m50 and m95.
(Printed with permission from Wölfel Beratende Ingenieure, Höchberg, Germany)

In the traditional engineering process the dynamic seating comfort is evaluated by measurements with
test persons. This provides the benefit of subjective ratings e.g. by questionnaires but includes
disadvantages with respect to reproducibility which is important for absolute and relative assessments.
Consequently testing procedures by applying hardware dummies have been developed within the last
years. Thereby a prerequisite for realistic results is that the dummy must reproduce the dynamic
behaviour of the human body defined by the apparent mass. Accordingly rigid mass approaches fail.
Possible solutions are the superposition of several single dof oscillators or active systems as the dummy
MEMOSIK® (see Mozaffarin, 2008).

Rev 130531 25
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

Figure: Hardware dummy MEMOSIK® for


investigation of dynamic seating comfort

(Printed with permission from Wölfel Beratende


Ingenieure, Höchberg, Germany)

An alternative to the hardware testing are investigations using digital prototypes. This transfer to the
virtual reality enables the assessment of the dynamic seating comfort in an early stage of the
development process. Further design variants differing in material and geometric properties can be
compared overnight, while already the production of adequate hardware prototypes would take days or
weeks. A challenge within the virtual development is the modelling of the seat and the human body
representing the real static and dynamic properties. A possible solution is represented by the application
of the FE human body model CASIMIR (see Siefert, 2008) in combination with detailed seat models,
where the real behaviour is reflected by nonlinear and frequency dependent properties.

Figure: Human Body


Model CASIMIR and
detailed seat model of a
car passenger seat

(Printed with permission


from Wölfel Beratende
Ingenieure, Höchberg,
Germany)

Finally analysis methods must be applied at the end of the real or virtual process to assess physical
quantities as the seat transfer function or vibration amplitudes regarding the dynamic seating comfort.
Thereby is a basic approach the evaluation of the main characteristics of the seat-transfer-function as:
amplitude or frequency of maximum peak, isolation frequency and level of amplitude after isolation.
Further methods as the ISO 2631-1 or the determination of the SEAT following the ISO 10326-1 are
computing one scalar value out of the RMS results of the vibration acting on the occupant. A more
detailed approach was developed by Lennert (2009) and is named ‘Dimension of perception’. Thereby
the frequency spectrum is separated in ranges as in real measurements a correlation between them and
real vibration phenomena as e.g. high-frequency-shake was identified. This procedure is already
established in acoustics and enables nowadays a more detailed assessment for the dynamic seating
comfort.

Rev 130531 26
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

Layout of the driver’s environment


To make a vehicle run it takes two things in a very broad sense: the mechanical package combines the
powertrain and all its adjacent components on one hand. On the other hand there is the occupant
package made up by the primary and secondary controls. Primary controls are defined as necessary for
performing the driving tasks and are steering wheel, pedals, shifter and handbrake. Secondary controls
are those that indirectly required for the driving tasks, controls like headlamp switch, steering wheel
mounted switches and climate controls.

The mechanical package

The mechanical package combines front end package and underbody package. As the latter is taking up
space underneath the vehicle, only the front end mechanical package is competing with the occupant
package for the same space. The target is to minimize the front end package space for the benefit of a
larger occupant package on the same given footprint. The mechanical package engineer will try to deliver
the most space efficient powertrain by optimizing and ‘nesting’ components.

Figure: An example of ‘nested’ powertrain components. Here the cooling package is


‘nested’ between the engine and the battery and fuse box package. (Ford Motor
Company)

Also, structural requirements need to be met and observed to meet a certain crash performance. So the
target is to minimize the length dimension between the front most point of the front bumper and the
separation wall between engine compartment and vehicle interior. For simplification purposes it is
advisable to look at the distance to the accelerator heel point.

Key Features differences

Rev 130531 27
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

Powertrain orientation has a considerable impact on the seating position relative to the front axle.
According to figure xxx, the distance A between the axle and the occupant is influenced by the
powertrain width. East/west oriented powertrains have the advantage of a relatively small tunnel that
enables a seating position closer to the front of the vehicle, thus minimizing the distance between the
front bumper and the accelerator heel position. With a north/south orientation, the transmission

Figure: The relationship between powertrain orientation and distance to front axle.
Due to the transmission package size requirement, the distance increases. (Ford Motor
Company)

requires a lot of space and forces the occupant to be positioned further rearward. The distance between
front of vehicle and the occupant is increased.

Pedal package

There are a few things to be defined around the pedal package. Again it is important to create a pedal
package that does not consume too much space, thus moving the occupant further away from the front
of the vehicle again. Therefore the pedal travel has to be optimized while maintaining a low level of
efforts. This can be achieved by arranging the pedal geometry such that the initial undepressed pedal
position is roughly horizontal compared to the end stop position.

Figure: Critical pedal angles relative to maximum force exertion capability. (Printed
with permission from Wiley)

Rev 130531 28
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

Next the clearances need to be observed as directed by the legal requirements described in ECE 35.
These clearance requirements need to be maintained throughout the entire pedal motion range. Finally
there typically needs to be a provision for a footrest as this is an important customer posture comfort
requirement.

Application of SAE J826 and SAE J1516/1517

When this step is completed, the layout can be continued with the application of J826 and J1516/1517.
At the beginning of these steps, it is vital to have a good understanding of the target population. As
discussed, sources of anthropometric data are very useful to gain the necessary understanding and facts
of what to cater for. Figure xxx demonstrates what the challenge might be. When developing concepts
for a global customer base, the accommodation range needs to be stretched to cover a larger range of
statures with one given layout of the seat adjustment.

Figure: The challenge for the concept developer is the wide spread of anthropometric
properties of different populations. (Ford Motor Company)

By starting with the established accelerator heel point AHP and the accelerator actuation point AAP an
appropriate seat height H30 needs to be selected according to which kind of vehicle concept is intended
to be pursued. Then by use of the formulae out of J1516 and J1517 the concept can be established.

• 190 to 230 mm for coupes


• 230 to 300 mm for sedans and wagons
• >300 mm for MAV’s/CUV’s

Figure: Layout of the driver position with typical values for the seat height H30. (Ford
Motor Company)

To explain the use of the accommodation curves a bit further, it is worthwhile to explain the options.
With a higher seat and H30 moving beyond 300 mm, the manikin shifts its position following the

Rev 130531 29
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

percentile accommodation curves. As a consequence, the driver moves further forward. This in return
enables to achieve additional knee room in the second row while maintaining a given footprint

Figure: Gain of rear leg space while maintaining the targeted footprint. (Ford Motor
Company)
Use of CAE tools

Once the concept has been established based on the SAE standards, it has become standard practice to
use CAE tools to verify the base layout and further define the driving environment. Here it is useful to
define a user group consisting of all possible anthropometric configurations, so called somatotypes. This
collective would address the special needs of drivers with long torsos and short torsos respectively. Here
the purpose is to test the established concept for all possible use cases i.e. when a driver with a short
torso and long legs still needs to be able to reach the steering wheel. Likewise, a driver with shorter legs
has to sit further forward and would have insufficient head clearance to the headlining due to his long
torso.

Figure xxx displays such a ‘user collective’ generated using the RAMSIS software. Other CAE tools can
also be used for this purpose.

Figure: User collective established using RAMSIS. (Ford Motor Company)

Primary and Secondary Controls, Guidelines for the Layout

Rev 130531 30
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

• Steering wheel
Having defined the user group it is now possible to refine the initial concept and verify the
accommodation range.
o Layout requirements
With a representative torso angle selected, the steering wheel position can be determined
by exploring the maximum and minimum reach by investigating a 5th percentile female and a
95th percentile male data set . Typically there would be a range of around 100 mm between
the capabilities for tall and small persons. In other words, ideally the steering wheel
adjustment range should achieve 100 mm. Since this dimension is restricted by technology,
adjustable steering columns can achieve a maximum travel of up to 60 mm only, a center
point has to be determined based on the 50th percentile reach.
o System expectation
Steering wheel efforts should be uniform and not exceeding strength capabilities for older
customers. Locking efforts for the column adjustment should follow the same strategy.
All steering wheel mounted controls should be within reach and usable with hands on the
steering wheel. There needs to be sufficient clearance around the steering wheel rim to
adjacent components when turning the steering wheel.
Sufficient care needs to be taken that the shape of the steering wheel does not obscure
vision to components on the instrument panel like the main light switch, stalks and most
importantly the cluster.
• Gear shifter
o Layout requirements
Based on the preferred seating position that is defined by the selected Seating Reference
Point and seat back angle the reach to the gear shifter needs to be established. Note that a
full hand grasp is required to determine the reach to the foremost and most distant gear
position.
o System expectation
System expectations for manual transmissions are more crucial than those for automatic
transmissions. Due to the higher frequency of use while driving, it is important to ensure
low shift efforts and high precision gear engagement together with positive feedback of
gears being engaged.
The shifter should neither obstruct visibility nor access to other controls. Also, clearance to
adjacent controls needs to be maintained. Appropriate clearance envelopes can be
established based on the specified user population. Drivers wearing work gloves or gloves to
protect from cold weather need more operational clearance then those drivers that drive
with bare hands.
• Pedal Package
o Layout requirements
The pedal package needs to be arranged to fulfill the legal requirements as defined in ECE
35. As discussed the clearances between pedals are vital to avoid inadvertent actuation. For
the same reason, it is important to place the pedals in an expected location relative to the
mid-sagittal plane of the driver’s body.

Rev 130531 31
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

o System expectation
Due to the higher frequency of use with manual transmissions, the clutch pedal needs to be
treated with extra care. The pedal travel is important for pedal operation. If the clutch pedal
travel is too large, drivers will complain about difficulties depressing the pedal too much in
conjunction with discomfort of the thigh against the seat cushion. If the pedal travel is too
short, then it is hard to control and modulate around the clutch engagement point.
Research exists which suggests that drivers position themselves further forward in vehicles
with a manual transmission.
Accelerator pedal efforts need to be well balanced for actuation and holding cycles. When
accelerating, the pedal efforts need to be relatively low for a good performance perception.
On the other hand, at steady speeds, pedal holding efforts should not be too low to avoid
muscular cramps due to insufficient foot support.
• Hand brake
o Layout requirements
Depending on the chosen system (Power park brake, manual hand brake, foot operated
park brake) different requirements do apply. All of these systems need to be within reach by
hand and foot respectively. Sufficient clearance needs to exist throughout the entire range
of application.
o System expectation
In the last few years the design of power hand brake interfaces has shifted towards the
handbrake stereotype. Drivers are more familiar with pulling the manual handbrake
upwards, so the expectation to the power handbrake is the same. Pushing a switch is rather
not intuitive.
Due to the compact space requirement of the park brake switch the positioning is very
flexible, therefore a place in the center console area is easily found and in line with the
customer expectation.
Efforts for manual hand brakes are critical for older customers. The level of force required
needs to be rather low so that it is safe to hold the vehicle on mild slopes with only a little
application travel.
• Switches
o Layout requirements
The layout strategy needs to be based on the importance of the required switches. Those
with higher frequency of use should be located around and well within reach of the driver.
Good visibility and unobstructed access shall be provided. The switches with higher
importance should be located within the 95th percentile reach and forward of the minimum
reach to avoid awkward posture when in use.

o System expectation
There exist a number of prime requirements for switches. The switch interface needs to
provide the driver with a sufficiently large interface. In case a number of small switches are
required to be placed next to each other it is advisable to add a physical separation between
them to avoid inadvertent actuation.

Rev 130531 32
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

All switches have to be clearly identified with a meaningful label. A large number of labels is
defined by ISO 2575, some are regulated by ECE 121. In some countries, text is preferred
over labels. It is self-evident that all switches need to be illuminated, except for those
switches where illumination is difficult (stalks, other trim mounted switches).
Upon actuation, a switch needs to provide some sort of feedback, either a haptic or a visual
feedback. Customer expectation is that within a certain time the desired action is
completed.
Finally, switches need to be designed so that they function according to human stereotypes.
This is described in SAE J1139. Figure xxx shows an example of different variants of power
window switches. The stereotype that can be applied here is pushing the switch down to
open the window and pulling it up to close the window. Another concept related to
stereotyping is coding. The pictures in the lower left hand corner are a demonstration of
both, perfect stereotype and coding. The switches mimic the function of the power window
and can be attributed to the respective side windows.

Figure: Demonstration of stereotypes using the example of power window switches.


(Printed with permission from SAE)

o Quality perception
Perceived quality can play a major role in the attempt to create a driver environment that is
pleasing and easy to use. The work environment is influencing the driver motivation,
therefore makes a positive contribution to the drivers well-being and his willingness to
perform. It also contributes to the technical demands that lead to enhanced human
performance.

Vehicle evaluation
Subjective Rating

Rev 130531 33
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

Subjective rating is the oldest method to evaluate something and will probably continue to
survive. As mentioned earlier, the human body is fully equipped with hundreds of biological sensors.
Experienced evaluators essentially use these sensors in order to detect small differences in design, which
are not yet measurable or only with excessive effort. Many different evaluation schemes have been
reported in the literature and it is beyond the scope of this chapter to come up with a complete review
or guideline. However, some basic rules should be mentioned:

1. Clear definition of the evaluation criteria and precise description of the evaluation conditions.
Ergonomics is multi-dimensional. This means that several independent criteria need to be defined and
separated from each other. For each criterion there should be one critical task or boundary condition
where the differences between good and bad design are evident. Many criteria require real driving
exercises on the test track. Pure show room evaluation might not be appropriate.

2. Reference design. It is much easier to compare two designs than rate a single construction without any
reference. The reference design needs to be in a controlled condition over the time of usage. Paired
comparison is even better, but the number of combinations increases quadratic, which will be
prohibitive in many cases.

3. Descriptive rating scale. The rating scale should be clearly defined and not too fine. It is important that
all evaluators have the same understanding of a particular rating level. For design optimisation it can be
helpful to use bi-modal scales instead of one-dimensional scales. For instance, a seat can be too wide or
too narrow. Just rating the seat width on a scale from 1 to 10, would not give guidance on how to
improve the design.

4. Customer oriented weighting. Complex tasks such as ingress or luggage handling can be split into sub-
tasks to better understand the problem and to give the evaluator a better guidance. In many cases the
evaluation will be multidimensional anyway (e.g. seat comfort with posture support, lateral support,
vibration damping, climate comfort, etc.). The multi-dimensional rating needs to be combined to one
total score for each design proposal. A representative picture can only be obtained if all important
aspects are captured and weighted according to the customer preference for the particular vehicle type.
5. Trained evaluators. Subjective vehicle evaluation is like wine tasting. The evaluator needs much
experience, the ability to focus on specific aspects and the ability to separate the differences caused by
boundary conditions from the difference in performance.

6. Sufficient evaluations. Even trained evaluators do not always come to the same conclusion. However,
a smaller number of observations are needed, compared to regular customers. For a proper evaluation,
it is necessary to represent a certain range of the population with a number of selected evaluators
because the “ergonomic performance” of a design depends on the physical constitution of the evaluator.
This “subjective truth” can hardly be debated.

An alternative approach is the measurement of the performance. Ergonomic design supports the
driver and enables better performance or similar performance with less strain. Physiological
measurements such as heart rate or eye movement can be used to monitor the test subjects.
Operational time or failure rate are possible measures for the performance. A video analysis should run
in parallel, if possible. However, there are several problems connected to this approach, mainly pre-

Rev 130531 34
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

conditioning of the test subjects and learning effects. It will therefore be very difficult to evaluate a large
number of design proposals. On the other hand, this approach can reveal differences that the subjects
themselves could not express in words.

Data versus Knowledge

“Data driven”, that sounds great in general, but can be totally misleading in the context of ergonomics.
Of course, the pressure is high while competing with other attributes in the development process. It is
important to provide guidance as early as possible, but unfortunately many ergonomic methods require
a prototype or at least a mock-up. Once the human is part of the setup, a vast number of variables are
added. Subjective ratings are not as reliable as measurements. The order of the experiments will play a
role due to potential bias and precondition of the test subjects. Analytical CAE models need to fit to the
problem and the selected response needs to be meaningful. In all cases it will be possible to generate
data, but not all data can be condensed to knowledge. Existing knowledge from anthropometry,
physiology, biomechanics and psychology should not be neglected. Time and money can be saved, if the
specific problem relates to a simple fact, e.g. red numbers on black are more difficult to read than white
numbers on black. This is pure physiology and does not need to be revalidated. Remaining questions
should be expressed clearly, before starting any activity. What is the desired behaviour of the system
(the response)? Where are the boundaries of the investigated system? What are the parameters we
would like to vary? Who is the customer? Data calls for explanation whereas knowledge explains
something. That is a big difference. Knowledge drives the generation of meaningful data, which
subsequently increases the knowledge (see Gauch, 2003).

Develop a qualitative sketch of the investigated system, the parameter-diagram. Quantify the
effect of multiple design variables on a system response. Reduce the number of tests. Detect
interactions. Describe the system behaviour and provide estimates for new input combinations.
Optimize the setting of the design variables with in the given constraints. Communicate the results to
non-experts in a standardized way. In essence, these are the goals of the DoE method (Siebertz, 2010).
DoE has definitely not been invented for ergonomics, but it addresses a number of key problems that
arise during “design for ergonomics”. Especially the analytical methods will be difficult to explain to an
audience which is not really interested in the approach, but in the results of the design evaluation.

Rev 130531 35
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

Method Pro's Con's


Cheap.
Knowledge about the
Quick. Needs to fit exactly to the issue, otherwise only background info.
human body
Proven.
Vast number of potential sources.
Cheap. Needs to fit exactly to the issue.
Existing results from
Quick. Studies are not always good documented.
ergonomic studies
Mostly proven. Useless if statistical significance is not demonstrated.
Limited use if the boundary conditions / population are different.
Fits to the issue. Requires prototypes and knowledgeable experts.
Expert evaluation Cheap. Relatively low acceptance outside the department.
Reasonably quick and accurate Significance cannot be proven.
Expensive.
Fits to the issue.
Slow.
New ergonomic study Very high acceptance of the results within the
Requires prototypes.
vehicle development team.
Only useful with proper setup and data processing / statistics.
Precise and predictive.
Model generation and validation can be expensive and slow.
Early available in the development process.
CAE Requires CAE experts and software.
Mostly quick in execution.
Misleading if the model is used outside of the validated range.
High acceptance if models are validated.

Figure: Methods with their pro’s and con’s. The cheapest ways to obtain results are pure knowledge
and literature reviews. However, in many cases these will not answer the specific questions. Expert
evaluations are very useful, but also limited. New ergonomic studies and suitable CAE models are
most powerful, but also most expensive. In practice, there is always a trade-off between accuracy,
speed and expense.

Rev 130531 36
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

References
Anderson, M.S.: Kinematically Over-determinate Musculoskeletal Systems. PhD Thesis, Aalborg
University, 2009.

Bergmann, G., F. Graichen, J. Siraky, H. Jendrzynski, A. Rohlmann: Multichannel strain gauge telemetry
for orthopaedic implants. J.Biomechanics 21 (1988), 169-176.

Bhise, V.: Ergonomics in the Automotive Design Process. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2012.

Cherednichenko, A: Funktionales Modell der Einstiegsbewegung in einen PKW. Dissertation TU


München, 2008.

De Luca, C.J.: The use of surface electromyography in biomechanics, J. of Appl. Biomechanics, 13 (2):
135-163, 1997.

Dempster, W.T.: Space Requirements of the Seated Operator. Univ. of Michigan, WADC Technical Report
55-159, 1955.

Gauch, H.G.: Scientific Method in Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.

Goble, D., B. Noble, S. Brown: Where was my arm again? Memory-based matching of proprioceptive
targets is enhanced by increased target presentation time. Neuroscience Letters 481 (2010) 54–58

Haken, H., Haken-Grell, M.: Erfolgsgeheimnisse der Wahrnehmung. Ullstein, Frankfurt, 1994.

Herrmann, R.: Wayfinding & Lesbarkeit. Typojournal 2, Weimar, 2010.

Hettinger, T.: Muskelkraft bei Männern und Frauen, Zentralblatt Arbeit und Wissenschaft, 14, 79-84
(1960)

International Organization for Standardization (1997). Mechanical vibration and shock - Evaluation of
human exposure to whole-body vibration. ISO 2631-1, 2nd edition

International Organization for Standardization (1992). Mechanical vibration - Laboratory method for
evaluating vehicle seat vibration. ISO 10326-1

Kokoschka, S.: Grundlagen der Lichttechnik. Script, Lichttechnisches Institut der Universität Karlruhe,
2003.

Kroemer, K., E. Grandjean: Fitting the Task to the Human. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, PA 1997.

Lennert, S. (2009). Zur Objektivierung von Schwingungskomfort in Personenkraftwagen – Untersuchung


der Wahrnehmungsdimensionen. Fortschritt-Berichte VDI Nr. 698

Mozaffarin, A. et al. MEMOSIK V—An active dummy for determining three-directional transfer functions
of vehicle seats and vibration exposure ratings for the seated occupant. Int. Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, Vol. 38 471-482, 2008

Rev 130531 37
Marek, Siebertz: Ergonomics. Chapter 247 of the FISITA Encyclopedia Automotive Engineering, Wiley

Niemi, J., Nieminen, H., Takala, E., Viikari-Juntura, E. (1996). A static shoulder model based on a time-
dependent criterion for load sharing between synergistic muscles. Journal Biomechanics 29, 451-460).
Pauwels, F.: Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur funktionellen Anatomie des Bewegungsapparates. Berlin,
Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1965.

Salvendy, G.: Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2006.

Sainio, P.: Non Visual Information in Vehicle Handling. Licenciate of science in technology thesis, Helsinki
University of Technology, 2007.

Schmidt, R.F., H.G. Schaible: Neuro- und Sinnesphysiologie. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005.

Schmidtke, H.: Handbuch der Ergonomie. Bundesamt f. Wehrtechnik und Beschaffung, Koblenz, 1989.

Schünke, M., E. Schulte, U. Schumacher: PROMETHEUS, Lernatlas der Anatomie. Allgemeine Anatomie
und Bewegungssystem. Thieme-Verlag, Stuttgart, 2004.

Seidl, A. : The Man Model RAMSIS: Analysis, Synthesis and Simulation of 3-dimensional Human Body
Postures. Dissertation, Technische Universität München, 1994.

Siebertz, K.: Biomechanische Belastungsanalysen unter Berücksichtigung der Leichtbauweise des


Bewegungsapparates. Dissertation, RWTH Aachen, 1994.

Siebertz, K., J. Rausch, J. Rasmussen, S. Tørholm: Simulation des menschlichen Bewegungsapparates zur
Innenraumgestaltung von Fahrzeugen. In: DGLR-Bericht 2007-04 „Simulationsgestützte
Systemgestaltung“ , Hamburg, 2007.

Siebertz, K., D. van Bebber, T. Hochkirchen: Statistische Versuchsplanung: Design of Experiments (DoE).
Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag, 2010.

Siefert, A. et al. Virtual optimisation of car passenger seats: Simulation of static and dynamic effects on
drivers’ seating comfort. Int. Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 38 410-424, 2008

Silbernagl, S., A. Despopoulos: Taschenatlas Physiologie. Thieme, Stuttgart, 2012.

Winter, D.A.: Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement. John Wiley & Sons, New York,
2005.

Zatsiorsky, V.: Kinematics of Human Motion. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, 1998.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank everyone who contributed to this chapter. In particular: Alexander
Siefert, the company Human Solutions, John Rasmussen, Ralf Herrmann, Nanxin Wang, . We would also
like to thank our wives Magdalena Malicki-Marek / Birgit Siebertz for their patience with us, while we
wrote the chapter after work and on weekends.

Rev 130531 38

View publication stats

You might also like