Search Results

With advances in virtual prototyping, accurate digital modeling of driving posture is regarded as a fundamental step in the design of ergonomic driver-seat-cabin systems. Extensive work on driving postures has been carried out focusing on the measurement and prediction of driving postures and the determination of comfortable joint angle ranges. However, studies on postural sensitivity are scarce. The current study investigated whether a driver-selected posture actually represents the most preferred one, by comparing the former with ratings of postures selected at 20 predefined places around the original hip joint center (HJC). An experiment was undertaken in a lab setting, using two distinctive driving package geometries: one for a sedan and the other for an SUV. The 20 postural ratings were compared with that of the initial user-selected position.

3D digital human modeling (DHM) tools for vehicle packaging facilitate ergonomic design and evaluation based on anthropometry, comfort, and force analysis. It is now possible to quickly predict postures and positions for drivers with selected anthropometry based on ergonomics principles. Despite their powerful visual representation technology for human movements and postures, these tools are still questioned with regard to the validity of the output they provide, especially when predictions are made for different populations. Driving postures and positions of two populations (i.e. North Americans and Koreans) were measured in actual and mock-up SUVs to investigate postural differences and evaluate the results provided by a DHM tool. No difference in driving postures was found between different stature groups within the same population. Between the two populations, however, preferred angles differed for three joints (i.e., ankle, thigh, and hip).

The topology optimization made a great success in pure structural design in an actual industrial field. However, a lot of factors interact each other in a actual engineering field in highly complicated manner. The typical conceptual trade-off is that cost and performance, that is, since they are competing factors, one can't improve the specific system without consideration of interaction. The vehicle has lots of competing factors, especially like fuel economy and acceleration performance, mass and stiffness, roominess and cost, short front overhang and crash-worthiness and so on. In addition, they interact each other in a more complicated manner, that is, fuel economy has something to do with not only engine performance but also mass, roominess, stiffness, the length of overhang, trunk volume, etc. So, most of decision-makings have been made by management based on subjective knowledge and experience.