HAL Id: hal-01857644
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01857644
Submitted on 16 Aug 2018
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of
sci-entific research documents, whether they are
pub-lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
To cite this version:
Junfeng Peng, Xuguang Wang, Lisa Denninger. Comparing the preferred driving postures between
Chinese and French drivers. 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Aug 2015, MELBOURNE, Australia.
7 p. �hal-01857644�
Comparing the preferred driving postures between Chinese and French drivers
Junfeng. Penga,b,c,d,, Xuguang. Wanga,b,c, Lisa. Denningerd
aUniversité de Lyon, F-69622, Lyon, France;bUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Villeurbanne ; cIFSTTAR, UMR_T9406, LBMC Laboratoire de Biomécanique et mécanique des chocs, F69675,Bron; dPSA
Peugeot-Citroën, Sochaux
Abstract: The effects of seat height and anthropometric dimensions on preferred driving posture were
investigated using a multi-adjustable mock-up in the present study. More specifically, Chinese and French drivers were compared. Sixty-one subjects (40 ‘French-born’ and 21 ‘Chinese-born’) participated in the experiment, covering a large range of stature and sitting height to stature ratio. Preferred driving postures were collected from three seat heights fixed at 250, 300 and 350 mm. Apart from hip fore-aft position, seat height only affected trunk-thigh angle while all other inter-segment angles including trunk inclination were kept invariant. Differences were only found in trunk related angles between different participant groups. Shorter persons tended to have a less inclined trunk while they had almost the same trunk-thigh angle as taller persons. Chinese participants had a more opened trunk-thigh angle and a more inclined trunk due to the fact that their hips were positioned more forward in the seat. Results support the assumption that the inter-segmental (joint) angles of the preferred driving posture are not dependent on driver’s anthropometry.
Practitioner Summary: Effects of seat height and anthropometric dimensions on preferred driving posture
were investigated. The findings would be useful for improving vehicle interior design for a better accommodation of target driver population with a large variation of anthropometric dimensions due to market globalization.
Keywords: Vehicle packaging, Driving posture, Anthropometry, Digital human modeling
1. Introduction
Being able to accommodate a target population with a high variety of anthropometric dimensions and individual preferences is one of ergonomic goals in vehicle occupant packaging. In the past, much work has been done to determine the preferred driving postures. Rebiffé (1969) proposed comfortable joint angle ranges in the sagittal plane for driving from a theoretical analysis of driving activities. Many experimental efforts (Ribouchon 1991, Seidle 1994, Porter and Gyi 1998, Park et al. 2000, Hanson et al. 2006, Kyung et Nussbaum 2009) were also made to observe the preferred driving postures using a multi-adjustable driving mock-up or real vehicles. Among these studies, contradictory findings on effects of driver’s anthropometric dimensions were reported. Park and his colleagues (1999) found trunk-thigh angle was correlated positively with stature, while in another publication (Park et al. 2000), a negative correlation was found. Porter and Gyi (1998) observed a more ‘open’ posture for tall subjects with bigger elbow and trunk-thigh angle than shorter persons. But they explained that this could be due to the limited adjustment ranges of the rig. Kyung and Nussbaum (2009) found significant stature effect on the left ankle, left hip and neck angle. Ribouchon (1991) observed that the preferred posture was not dependent on stature. This was confirmed by a more recent study by Hanson et al. (2006). Meanwhile, most of the previous studies were carried out on Europeans or North Americans. There are very few studies with Asian population, especially Chinese drivers. Anthropometrical characteristics of Chinese adults are different from Europeans not only in stature distribution, but also in body segment proportion. For example, according to the anthropometric survey of Chinese adults in 1988, Chinese males had an average stature of 1678 mm against 1719 mm for French male drivers according to the survey by Rebiffé et al (1982), while their average sitting heights were respectively 908 and 911 mm for Chinese and French. Among very few studies involving Asian subjects, Park et al. (2000) observed that Korean drivers had greater trunk-thigh and knee angles than those recommended in the literature. Kyung (2008) collected preferred driving postures and subjective evaluations from 11 North Americans and 11 Koreans using an adjustable driving mockup. A significant difference in discomfort rating was observed between the two groups. However preferred postures were not compared.
Therefore, there is a need to further investigate the effects of anthropometric dimensions and vehicle interior geometry variables on driving posture. In this paper, the effects of seat height and anthropometric dimensions on preferred driving posture were investigated. More specifically, French and Chinese drivers were compared.
2. Materials and methods
1.1. Participants
Sixty-one drivers participated in the experiment. They all had a driving license for more than one year and drove regularly. They did not suffer any neurological or musculoskeletal disorders. The subjects are divided into three groups according to stature: short (<1654 mm), average (1670-1760 mm) and tall (>1775 mm). In order to have a large variation of sitting height/stature ratio, an effort was made to constitute two comparable groups according to ethnic origin: Chinese and French. Due to recruitment difficulty, most of Chinese-born subjects were in the short and average groups. The main characteristics of the participants according to stature and ethnic origin are described in Table 1. As no Chinese participant was higher than 1805 mm, a sub-sample was constituted by excluding those taller than 1805 mm. The experimental protocol was approved by the ethical committee of IFSTTAR (French Institute of Science and Technology for Transport, Development and Networks). Informed consent was given before participating in the experiment.
Table 1. Main characteristics of participants by stature and ethnic origin. SH, AL and S stand for sitting height, arm length as the sum of the upper arm length and the forearm length, and stature
Stature (S) (mm) Sitting height (SH) (mm) Weight (kg) Group M/F Mean±SD Max/min SH/S (10-2) AL/S (10-2) Short 1/19 1582±41 1645/1490 859±23 905/815 54.3±1.2 43.1±1.4 54.4±7.5 Average 14/6 1715±32 1760/1670 915±29 970/860 53.4±1.5 43.4±1.4 67.0±8.8 Tall 21/0 1846±62 2000/1775 960±26 1000/910 52.0±1.3 43.8±1.6 74.3±11.2 All 36/25 1717±119 2000/1490 912±49 1000/815 53.2±1.6 43.5±1.5 65.4±12.4 French 12/15 1683±88 1800/1520 897±46 975/815 53.3/1.3 43.6±1.5 63.1±9.4 Chinese 11/10 1657±86 1805/1490 899±40 980/840 54.3/1.1 42.6±1.0 59.8±10.6 1.2. Experimental facilities
A multi-adjustable vehicle mockup shown in Figure 1, composed of an accelerator pedal, a clutch pedal, a foot rest, a steering wheel and a seat, was used in this study. The available adjustments are listed in Table 2. Most of them were motorized and could be controlled by subjects themselves easily through an intuitive touch-screen, while others were controlled manually by an experimenter. The accelerator pedal height being also adjustable, the ball of foot reference point (BOFRP) defined in SAE J4004 was thus not fixed. The geometrical accelerator pedal center (APC) was used as the origin for the longitudinal x-axis. The vertical z-axis was defined from the floor. A Peugeot 508 seat, considered as a high-end product with electric
adjustments in fore-aft position, height, lumbar support, cushion angle and back inclination, was used. Its cushion length was also adjustable from 364 to 399 mm, measured horizontally from the seat front edge to the H-point. The seat track was mounted on a platform adjustable both in height and inclination, providing an adjustable seat height from about 150 mm to 500 mm. An extended range of seat adjustment in x was ensured by changing the accelerator pedal in addition to the adjustment range of 240 mm of seat track itself. Seat cushion angle could be adjusted by the use of its own tilt mechanism with a range up to 5°. If a larger rotation was required, the platform on which mounted the seat track could also be rotated. Large seat back adjustment range was also provided from the vertical to almost the horizontal. The steering wheel was mounted on a separate pillar, providing a large adjustment range in both x and z directions. The clutch pedal could be adjusted independently with respect to the accelerator pedal. Travel angle of clutch pedal could be chosen by subjects from the five predefined values: 9°, 16°, 23°, 30° and 37°. Travel length was fixed at 150
mm. The pedal resistance at the end of depression was not explicitly controlled as in our earlier studies (Wang et al, 2000, Pannetier and Wang, 2014). The fore-aft position the foot rest could also be changed as well as its inclination. There were five discontinuous foot rest inclinations: 29°, 36°, 43°, 51° and 60°. No brake pedal was mounted.
Reflective markers were attached to the body as well as to all moveable parts of the mock-up. A VICON optoelectronic system with 14 MX40 cameras was used for capturing the positions of these markers.
Figure 1. Experimental vehicle mock-up Table 2. List of adjustable vehicle interior parameters
Adjustable Parameter Type of control
Seat H-point vertical position to floor Touch-screen
Cushion angle defined according to SAE J826 (MAR2008) Control button or touch-screen Seat H-point horizontal position aft of APC Control button
Back angle defined according to SAE J826 (MAR2008) Control button Vertical position of steering wheel center to floor Touch-screen Steering wheel horizontal position aft to APCx Manual by subject Steering wheel angle Manual by subject Accelerator pedal height to floor Touch-screen Clutch pedal undepressed horizontal position aft of APC Touch-screen Clutch pedal height to floor Touch-screen
Clutch pedal travel angle Manual by experimenter Footrest reference horizontal point aft to APC Touch-screen
Footrest angle Manual by experimenter
1.3. Experimental conditions and procedure
Three seat heights at 250, 300 and 350 mm were tested in this study, covering a large range of
passenger vehicles. For each seat height, subjects were asked to find their preferred driving vehicle interior dimensions by changing all available adjustments with the fore-aft position of the accelerator being fixed. The configuration with seat height of 300 mm was repeated three times. The trial order was randomized.
Prior to the experiment, a set of preliminary work had to be carried out. After the arrival of the subject in the motion capture room, the purpose of the experiment was first explained. Then, the participant was asked to change into a gym-suit and 32 anthropometric measurements were collected. Reflective markers were attached to the body. The participants were photographed in both a standing and a sitting posture in a calibrated space. These postures were also captured with the motion capture system for the kinematic motion reconstruction. For each test condition, initial positions of interior vehicle elements were set to their extreme positions so that participants had to use all available adjustments. An adjustment sequence was suggested but not mandatory: accelerator pedal (only vertical position), seat (fore-aft position, cushion angle, back angle), footrest (for-aft position, inclination), clutch pedal (fore-aft position, vertical position, travel
inclination), steering wheel (vertical and fore-aft position, inclination). The participants were free to go back to the previous adjustments at any moment, and to take as long time as needed. Once the subjects found their preferred driving positions, a full movement of depressing clutch pedal was recorded by the Vicon motion caption system. The participants were instructed to place their hands on the steering wheel at the 10-to-2 o’clock position and to look forward as they were driving. They were asked to put their left foot on the foot rest, to fully depress the clutch pedal to its end, and then to move the left foot back on the foot rest. The right foot was asked to put on the accelerator without depressing. Subjects were required to leave the mockup after each trial and the adjustments were reset for a new test condition.
1.4. Data processing and analysis
All captured motions were reconstructed using the RAMSIS human model by minimizing the distance between the captured and model-based markers positions (see Ausejo and Wang 2008, for the principle of motion reconstruction). A set of postural parameters, defined Table 3 and illustrated in Figure 2, were calculated from reconstructed joint centers for describing the driving postures at the rest, beginning and end of clutch pedal depression. In this paper, only the parameters of the trunk and the right side limbs are reported at the rest position, for which the left foot was on the foot rest and the right foot on the accelerator pedal without depressing. Two-way analysis of variance ( ANOVA) was mainly used to assess the effects of participant group, either by stature (SG or by ethnic group (OG) and seat height (SH). P-value was fixed at 0.05 for statistical tests.
Table 3. Definition of the main driving posture variables Variable Definition
Hip_x Fore-aft position of the center of hip joints in respect of the accelerator pedal center (APC)
Trunk Angle between the vertical line and the line passing through the hip joint and the center of right and left shoulder joints.
Hip Angle between right thigh segment and the line passing through the right hip point and the right shoulder joint
Knee Angle between the right thigh and the right leg segments
Shoulder Angle between the right arm and a line passing through the right should joint and right hip joint
Elbow Angle between the right upper arm and right forearm
3. Results
The means and standard deviations of the postural variables by seat height and subject group were given in Error! Reference source not found.. The effects of seat height and participant group by stature or by ethnic origin are also indicated. Neither seat height nor participant group had a significant effect on shoulder, elbow and knee angles. Seat height only affected trunk-thigh (hip) angle. Higher the seat was, larger the trunk-thigh angle was. Interestingly, trunk inclination with respect to the vertical was not affected by seat height. Significant differences between three stature groups were found in trunk inclination but not in hip angles. Short subjects had a less inclined trunk by about 3° than tall volunteers. In addition to seat fore-aft position and trunk inclination, signification difference in hip angle was observed between the two ethnic groups. Chinese subjects had a more inclined trunk by 2.6° and a larger trunk-thigh angle by 3.8° than French group on average.
Table 4 means and standard deviations of the preferred driving postures for three imposed seat heights and subject groups by stature and by ethnic origin. The effects of seat height (SH) and subject group by stature (SG) or by ethnic origin (OG) are indicated.
Trunk Hip Knee Shoulder Elbow H250 24.0±6.4 91.1±7.4 112.8±8.2 53.3±9.7 124.6±15.6 H300 23.2±6.3 94.4±7.2 112.3±7.2 52.4±9.1 123.9±15.7 H350 23.2±6.5 98.4±7.7 112.2±7.4 52.0±9.4 125.6±16.0 Short 21.8±7.8 95.9±10.1 113.6±8.1 52.3±9.4 120.6±16.3 Average 23.8±4.1 93.7±5.2 110.7±6.1 52.5±9.2 124.1±15.9 Tall 24.5±6.3 94.0±6.8 112.8±7.6 52.6±9.3 128.5±14.0 Chinese 24.5±6.0 96.6±7.8 112.6±7.7 53.1±10.8 121.5±17.3 French 21.9±5.9 92.8±7.4 111.6±7.0 52.6±8.4 123.8±15.0 All 23.4±6.4 94.6±7.7 112.4±7.4 52.5±9.3 124.4±15.7 SG** OG** SH*** OG***
* 0.01<P-value<0.05; ** 0.001<P-value<0.01; ***P-value<0.001
4. Discussion
In this paper, the effects of seat height and anthropometric dimensions on preferred driving posture were investigated. More specifically, French and Chinese drivers were compared. The main findings can be summarized as follows:
• Seat height only affected trunk-thigh angle while all other inter-segment angles including trunk inclination were kept invariant.
• Differences were only found in trunk related angles between different participant groups. Shorter persons tended to have a less inclined trunk while they had almost the same trunk-thigh angle as tall persons. Chinese participants had a more opened trunk-thigh angle and a more inclined trunk.
Results show that trunk inclination was unaffected by seat height. This is in agreement with the observations by Reed et al (2000). This is probably due to the fact that the head has to be kept in a same orientation whatever seat height for a good forward vision required for driving as analyzed by Rebiffé (1969). As knee angle and trunk inclination were invariant to seat height change, a higher seat leads to a more opened trunk-thigh angle for a same person.
Contrary to the observations by Porter and Gyi (1998) who reported that taller drivers tended to adopt a more opened posture with a larger trunk, knee, shoulder and elbow angle, no significant differences were observed between three stature groups in all inter-segment angles in the present study, in agreement with observations by Hanson et al (2006). Instead, only a significant difference in trunk inclination with respect to the vertical direction between three stature groups was observed. This could be explained, at least partially, by the invariance of inter-segmental angles. If a short and a tall person adopt a same posture (with the same joint angles) for a same seat height, the shorter person has to rotate forward around the pelvis in order to reach the accelerator pedal, leading to a less inclined trunk.
One of main objectives was to compare the preferred driving postures between Chinese and French drivers. It was observed that Chinese participants had a more opened trunk-thigh angle and a more inclined trunk. A further investigation of the offset between hip joint center and seat H point showed that Chinese participants tended to sit in a more forward position in the seat. Figure 3 compares the offsets in x between
hip joint center and seat H-point between different subject groups. An effect of seat height can be clearly observed for short group. Chinese group had a bigger offset than French group. This might be explained by different body proportions between two ethnic groups. As showed by the anthropometric surveys in the past (GB1988 and Rebiffé et al, 1982), Chinese has a larger sitting height/stature ratio than French. In the present study, sitting height/stature ratio for the Chinese participants were significantly larger than French group (Table 1). In other words, for a same stature, Chinese has shorter lower limbs than French. The seat used in the present study had a minimum cushion length of 364 mm, measured horizontally from the seat front edge to the H-point. Reed (2000) recommended that the cushion length, measured along the thigh line with an angle of 15°, should not exceed 305 mm from the seat H-point to seat front edge based on U.S. population data. This is equivalent to a horizontal distance of 316 mm from the seat front edge to the H-point. Compared with this recommendation, the seat used in this study had a long seat cushion. This suggests that the seat designed for Chinese market should be different than that used in French market. In the future, the effects of seat on preferred posture need to be investigated.
Apart from the limitation that only one seat was used, one important limitation is that the experiment was carried out in the laboratory without considering the visual constraints. In order to investigate the body segment proportion effect on driving posture, a big effort was made to recruit equal number of Chinese and French subjects in each stature groups (short, average and tall). However, nearly no tall Chinese were recruited because the experiments were carried out in France. It would be interesting to investigate the differences between Chinese and European drivers using a larger sample.
Figure 3 Offsets between hip joint centre and seat H-point by stature group (a) and by ethnic group (b) in three seat heights. Negative value means that the hip is more forward than H-point. Only participants with stature less than 1805 mm were considered when comparing two ethnic groups.
5. Conclusion
Apart from trunk-thigh angle, inter-segmental angles and trunk inclination are largely unaffected by seat height. Our results support the assumption that the inter-segmental (joint) angles of the preferred driving posture are not dependent on anthropometric dimensions. With a same set of joint angles, different hip and eye positions are reached for differently sized people for a given vehicle configuration. Due to difference in body proportion, Chinese tended to sit more forward in a seat than French. Further investigation on the effects of seat with a larger sample is required in the future.
References
GB10000.1988. “Human dimensions of Chinese adults”. General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s republic of China
Gordon, C. C., Churchill, T., Clauser, C. E., Bradtmiller, B., and McConville, J. T. 1989. “1988 Anthropometric survey of US army personnel: methods and summary statistics”. Anthropology research project Inc yellow Springs OH. Hanson L., Sperling L. and Akselsson R. 2006. “Preferred car driving posture using 3-D information”. International
Journal of Vehicle Design, 42(1), 154-169
Kyung, G., and Maury A.M. (2009). “Specifying comfortable driving postures for ergonomic design and evaluation of the driver workspace using digital human models”. Ergonomics, 52(8), 939-953.
Pannetier, R., and Wang, X. (2014). “A comparison of clutching movements of freely adjusted and imposed pedal configurations for identifying discomfort assessment criteria”. Applied ergonomics, 45(4), 1010-1018.
Park, S.J., Kim, C.B., Kim, C.J., and Lee, J.W. 2000. “Comfortable driving posture for Koreans”, International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics, 26(4), 489-497.
Porter, J.M.and Gyi D.E. (1998) Exploring the optimum posture for driver comfort”, International Journal of Vehicle Design, Vol. 19 (3), pp. 255-266.
Rebiffé, R., Guillien, J., and Pasquet, P. 1982. “Enquête anthropométrique sur les conducteurs français“. Laboratoire de physiologie et de biomécanique de l’association Peugeot-Renault. (in French).
Rebiffé, R., 1969 “Le siège du conducteur :son adaptation aux exigences fonctionnelles et anthropométriques”. Ergonomics, 12(2), 246-261 (in French).
Ribonchon, S. 1991. “Confort postural du conducteur assis:etude des situations de confort optimal et des situation observées sous contrainte de h'auteurs d'assise”, Thesis, Université de paris-sud, center d’Orsay, Paris, France (in French).
Reed M.P., Manary, M.A., Flannagan C. A., and Schneider,L.W., 2000. “Effects of Vehicle Interior Geometry and Anthropometric Variables on Automobile Driving Posture”. Human Factors, 42(4), 541-552.
Reed, M. P. 2000. “Survey of auto seat design recommendations for improved comfort”. Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI).
Seidl, A. 1994. “Das Menschmodell RAMSIS, Analyse, Synthese und Simulation Dreidimensionaler Körperhaltung des Menschen”, (The man model RAMSIS: Analysis, Synthesis and Simulation of Three-dimensional Human Posture), Technical University of Munich, Germany, Doctoral thesis (in German).
Wang, X., Verriest, J. P., Lebreton-Gadegbeku, B., Tessier, Y., and Trasbot, J. 2000. “Experimental investigation and biomechanical analysis of lower limb movements for clutch pedal operation”. Ergonomics, 43(9), 1405-1429.
