Objective seating comfort scores for auto seat design

3,871 views

Published on

Objective seating comfort scores for seat design in automobiles are available to replace subjective seating comfort scores. The score is calculated from the optimized math data that defines a seat design and the position of digital human bodies sitting in the seat.

Published in: Automotive, Business, Technology
0 Comments
6 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,871
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
31
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
275
Comments
0
Likes
6
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Need Medium FemaleERL Small female in Asian percentile5th US female = ??%ile Asian femaleERL medium Male in Asian percentile95th Asian male = ??%ile US male
  • Objective seating comfort scores for auto seat design

    1. 1. Objective seating comfort scores forauto seat design. ERL LLC February 15, 2012
    2. 2. Objective Auto Seat DesignOptimize seat for driver at start of production  Body Size & Back Posture  Vision of Road  Reach to Controls  Seat Size, Shape and Deflection  Objective Seat Comfort Score
    3. 3. Body Size & Back Posture:Japan, Italy, Germany & USA Female Male 5th 5th Standing Height 5th 95th 95th 1st 1st 1st 95th 99th 99th S N E S N E S N E 99th 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 Standing ERL ERL ERL Large Stature Small Medium Male (mm) Female Male ANSUR (U.S. ARMY) } Germany US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138 PeopleSize Italy 2000 v2.06 Japan E = Erect ERL Occupant N = Neutral ERL Occupant S = Slumped ERL Occupant
    4. 4. Vision: Depends upon eye positionfor driving without visual obstructions Upward Vision Target (X, Z) Rearview Mirror Upward Vision Angle Downward Vision Angle Downward Vision Target (X, Z) Instrument Panel US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    5. 5. SMALL FEMALE HAND REACH Seat tilt lever outside reach boundaries. US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    6. 6. LARGE MALE HAND REACH All hand controls within reach boundaries. US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    7. 7. Seat Deflection: Meat-to-Metal is distanceof deflected body surface to frame  Problem: Identify Body all locations of body-to-frame distances that are less than allowable for seat stiffness and ride comfort Frame US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    8. 8. Seat Deflection: Pressure is bodypenetration of Sitting Surface Body  Problem: Find the maximum penetrations of body into seat STO bolster Bolster surfaces US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    9. 9. Seat Deflection: Penetration of the thighinto the seat wing (Pressure) Measure using tools in CAD.  If maximum penetration exceeds criteria for Body comfortable pressure, adjust seat design parameters and find new solution. Bolster US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    10. 10. Lumbar Support Analysis Example Lumbar in seat provides no support full support no support Required Actual Lumbar Occupant Erect Lumbar % Support Support Force Posture Support Force Provided by Seat (N) (N) Small Female 40.8 7.9 19.3% Medium Male 123.2 42.4 34.4% Large Male 168.2 25.8 15.3% Bite line too far forward US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    11. 11. Objective Seat Comfort:Evaluate for the Global Population  Driver’s Preferred Position  Seat support and contact of Driver’s Body  Vision meets needs of all drivers  Reach to controls & switches  All driver’s equally “fit” in seat & car
    12. 12. All drivers prefer a neutral posture, but eachhas different needs to be accommodated.Erect VisionNeutral Controls Reach HeadroomSlumped Legroom Small Female (5th %) Medium Male (50th %) Large Male (95th %) US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    13. 13. Objective Comfort Scores on 5 pt scale Japanese Subcompact German Sedan American SUV
    14. 14. Japanese SubcompactERL Population Comfort Scores
    15. 15. Japanese Subcompact Seat 4.2
    16. 16. Japanese Subcompact Driver SMALL FEMALE ERL Score: 3.25 Cushion: 3.1; Back: 3.4; Package: 5.0 Cushion is too long too long too short Cushion is wide at Thigh & Ischium too narrow too wide Head Restraint is too close too close too far US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    17. 17. Japanese Subcompact Driver MEDIUM MALE ERL Score: 4.57 Cushion: 4.19; Back: 4.51: Package: 5.0 Cushion length is just right too long too short Cushion doesn’t provide enough thigh support too much no support Shoulder patch wing shape is close too close too far US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    18. 18. Japanese Subcompact Driver LARGE MALE ERL Score: 3.3 Cushion: 2.0; Back: 4.2; Package: 4.3 Cushion length is short too long too short Cushion doesn’t provide enough thigh support too much not enough Seat requires additional rearward travel forward rearward Shoulder patch wing shape is close too close too far US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    19. 19. German SedanERL Population Comfort Scores
    20. 20. German Sedan Seat 4.12
    21. 21. German Sedan Driver SMALL FEMALE ERL Score: 3.61 Cushion: 2.16; Back: 4.33; Package: 4.33 Cushion too long too long too short Cushion provides thigh pressure too much pressure no support Cushion is too wide at Ischium too narrow too wide Shoulder is close too close too far Can not comfortably reach pedals can not can US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    22. 22. German Sedan Driver MEDIUM MALE ERL Score: 4.17 Cushion: 3.83; Back: 3.78; Package: 4.90 Cushion length is just right too long too short Cushion provides thigh pressure too much pressure no support Cushion is wide at ischium too narrow too wide Head restraint is far too close too far US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    23. 23. German Sedan Driver LARGE MALE ERL Score: 4.22 Cushion: 4.50; Back: 3.22; Package: 5.00 Cushion length is just right too long too short Cushion is wide at thigh too narrow too wide Shoulder wing shape provides too much penetration extreme penetration no contact Head restraint is too far too close too far US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    24. 24. American SUVERL Population Comfort Scores Seat Package Total Cushion Back Package Penalty % Penalty % Total (1.00 - 5.00) 4.48 4.53 4.19 4.94 0.40 1.40 Small Female 3.03 3.30 2.77 4.34 3.75 9.55 Medium Male 4.69 4.63 4.44 5.00 0.00 0.00 Large Male 4.39 5.00 3.64 5.00 0.30 4.40
    25. 25. American SUV Seat4.53
    26. 26. American SUV Driver SMALL FEMALE ERL Score: 3.05 Cushion: 3.3; Back: 2.75; Package: 4.34 Cannot comfortably reach accelerator cannot reach can reach Cushion length is too long too long too short Head restraint is too close too close too far Seatback stiffness is too soft too firm too soft Bite line contact is close extreme penetration no contact 25mm (Heel off floor) US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    27. 27. American SUV Driver MEDIUM MALE ERL Score: 4.7 Cushion: 4.65; Back: 4.45; Package: 5.0 Cushion length is just right too long too short Seatback insert stiffness is too soft too firm too soft Overall bolster shape provides good support extreme penetration no contact US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    28. 28. American SUV Driver LARGE MALE ERL Score: 8.8 Cushion: 5.0; Back: 3.65; Package: 5.0 Cushion length is just right too long too short Overall bolster shape provides good support extreme penetration no contact Seatback insert stiffness is too soft too firm too soft Bite line contact is close too far too close US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    29. 29. Comfort scores and body dimensions define population affectedby seated comfort in Automobile.
    30. 30. Seat Cushion Dimensionsfor Global Market Evaluation US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    31. 31. US Female Population:Cushion Length & Contact Length Analysis 86% of Cushion Length Females Cushion Too Long Length Too Short Cushion section behind calf Females: Cushion Length is TOO LONG: 14% } Cushion Length is LONG: 5% Small Female Contact Length Is JUST RIGHT: Contact Length Is SHORT: 81% 0% 86% Contact Length Is TOO SHORT: 0% Cushion Supports 86% of US Females* * Based on Buttock-Knee length using ANSUR data base. US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    32. 32. US Male Population:Cushion Length & Contact Length Analysis 97% of Males Cushion Length Cushion Too Long Length Too ShortCushion section behind calf Large Male Males: Cushion Length is TOO LONG: 2% } Cushion Length is LONG: 1% Contact Length Is JUST RIGHT: 94% 97% Contact Length Is SHORT: 2% Contact Length Is TOO SHORT: 1% Cushion Supports 97% of US Males* Cushion section behind calf Medium Male * Based on Buttock-Knee length using ANSUR data base. US Patents: #6,840,125, #7,047,831, #7,347,114, #7,797,138
    33. 33. % of US Market affected by Sources ofDiscomfort in Seating % Population Vehicle Small Female¹ Average Male¹ Large Male¹ <3.75 Score Japanese Sedan 3.77 4.74 4.19 0% Japanese Compact 4.04 4.72 3.26 5.9% German Sedan 4.15 4.70 4.21 0% German SUV 3.18 4.51 4.12 18.7% Swedish Sedan 4.12 4.57 3.48 3.7% American Crossover 2.96 4.69 4.39 21.5% Japanese Subcompact 3.25 4.45 3.30 25.6% American Sedan 3.40 4.71 4.43 9.7% American muscle car 3.21 4.63 4.31 15.5%American Subcompact SUV 2.78 4.12 3.88 37.0% American Sedan 2.94 4.29 4.10 30.5% Italian Subcompact 3.37 4.00 3.78 26.3%¹Five (5) Point Scale: Score calculated from math data in ERL.
    34. 34. ThanksMore Information: www.erlllc.com www.occuzone.com www.slideshare.net/macreynolds Inquiries: Mac Reynolds, Ph.D. ERL LLC reynolds@erlllc.com 1-517-256-3180

    ×