Advertisement

Importance of Human Anthropometry in the Interior Development of Autonomous Vehicles

  • Sibashis Parida
  • Samuel Brock
  • Sylvester Abanteriba
  • Mattias Franz
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 826)

Abstract

Currently autonomous driving is one of the dominant trends in the automotive industry. Cars that no longer need the driver’s attention will be used in a completely new way than is currently the case. Fully autonomous driving would allow drivers to participate in the so called “non-driving secondary activities”. In the future the car would be a place to work, a place to socialize, to relax, to meditate, spend quality time with the family, take a nap, and a whole lot more. The autonomous driving vehicle would be more of a living space, rather than just a mode of transportation.

In order to facilitate these non-driving activities, the interior of the vehicle and the vehicle seats would be reconfigured and redesigned differently, as compared to the conventional vehicle interiors until now. Given the fact that the space available within a classical vehicle is limited, a lot of importance needs to be given to human anthropometry. In order to offer optimal space and comfort, the interior of the vehicle needs to be flexible and needs to be adaptable and customizable to the anthropometry of the occupant.

The paper helps to understand the importance of human anthropometry in the design and development of the vehicle seating and seating configuration. Discussed in the paper are potential advantages, if human anthropometry is used as a parameter in the design and development of the interior of autonomous driving cars.

Keywords

Anthropometry Autonomous vehicles Vehicle automation Self-driving Seating 

References

  1. 1.
    SAE International (2016) Surface vehicle recommended practice J3016 SEP2016: taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehiclesGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lavieri PS, Garikapati VM, Bhat CR et al (2017) Modeling individual preferences for ownership and sharing of autonomous vehicle technologies. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2665:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Winner H, Wachenfeld W (2016) Effects of autonomous driving on the vehicle concept. In: Maurer M, Gerdes JC, Lenz B et al (eds) Autonomous driving: technical, legal and social aspects. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 255–275Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roebuck JA (1995) Anthropometric methods: designing to fit the human body. Human factors and ergonomics societyGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ziolek SA, Wawrow P (2004) Beyond percentiles: an examination of occupant anthropometry and seat design. SAE technical paper (2004-01-0375).  https://doi.org/10.4271/2004-01-0375
  6. 6.
    Grünen RE, Fabian G, Bubb H (2015) Anatomical and anthropometric characteristics of the driver. In: Bubb H, Bengler K, Grünen RE et al (eds) Automobilergonomie. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reed MP (2013) Measuring and modeling human body shapes for vehicle design and assessment. http://mreed.umtri.umich.edu/mreed/pubs/Reed_2013_3D_Anthropometry.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2018
  8. 8.
    Reed MP, Manary MA, Flannagan CA et al (2000) Effects of vehicle interior geometry and anthropometric variables on automobile driving posture. Hum Factors 42(4):541–552.  https://doi.org/10.1518/001872000779698006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lämkull D, Berlin C, Örtengren R (2008) Digital human modeling: evaluation tools. In: Duffy VG (ed) Handbook of digital human modeling: research for applied ergonomics and human factors engineering. CRC Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bubb H, Fritzsche F (2008) A scientific perspective of digital human models: past, present, and future. In: Duffy VG (ed) Handbook of digital human modeling: research for applied ergonomics and human factors engineering. CRC Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Konz SA (1983) Work design: industrial ergonomics, 2nd edn. Grid Pub, Columbus OhioGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Godil A, Ressler S (2008) Shape and size analysis and standards. In: Duffy VG (ed) Handbook of digital human modeling: research for applied ergonomics and human factors engineering. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reed MP, Manary MA, Flannagan CAC et al (2000) Comparison of methods for predicting automobile driver posture. SAE technical paper (2000-01-2180).  https://doi.org/10.4271/2000-01-2180
  14. 14.
    Reed M, Roe RW, Manary MA et al (1999) New concepts in vehicle interior design using ASPECT. SAE technical paper (1999-01-0967).  https://doi.org/10.4271/1999-01-0967
  15. 15.
    Kolich M (2008) A conceptual framework proposed to formalize the scientific investigation of automobile seat comfort. Appl Ergon 39(1):15–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2007.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gyi D (2013) Driving posture and healthy design. In: Gkikas N (ed) Automotive ergonomics: driver-vehicle interaction. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reynolds M (2012) Sitting posture in design position of automotive interiors. Int J Human Factors Model Simul 3(3–4):276.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHFMS.2012.051554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Herriots P, Johnson P (2013) Are you sitting comfortably? A guide to occupant packaging in automotive design. In: Gkikas N (ed) Automotive ergonomics: driver-vehicle interaction. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fazlollahtabar H (2010) A subjective framework for seat comfort based on a heuristic multi criteria decision making technique and anthropometry. Appl Ergon 42(1):16–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diels C, Erol T, Kukova M et al (2017) Designing for comfort in shared and automated vehicles (SAV): a conceptual frameworkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kamp I, Kilincsoy U, Vink P (2011) Chosen postures during specific sitting activities. Ergonomics 54(11):1029–1042.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2011.618230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jung E, Han S, Jung M et al (1998) Coach design for the Korean high-speed train. Appl Ergon 29(6):507–519.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(97)00010-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eost C, Flyte MG (1998) An investigation into the use of the car as a mobile office. Appl Ergon 29(5):383–388.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(98)00075-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sang K, Gyi D, Haslam C (2010) Musculoskeletal symptoms in pharmaceutical sales representatives. Occup Med (Lond) 60(2):108–114.  https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqp145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weston E, Le P, Marras WS (2017) A biomechanical and physiological study of office seat and tablet device interaction. Appl Ergon 62:83–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.02.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Asundi K, Odell D, Luce A et al (2010) Notebook computer use on a desk, lap and lap support: effects on posture, performance and comfort. Ergonomics 53(1):74–82.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130903389043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Paddan GS, Mansfield NJ, Arrowsmith CI et al (2012) The influence of seat backrest angle on perceived discomfort during exposure to vertical whole-body vibration. Ergonomics 55(8):923–936.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2012.684889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fagnant DJ, Kockelman K (2015) Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract 77:167–181.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Molenbroek JFM, Albin TJ, Vink P (2017) Thirty years of anthropometric changes relevant to the width and depth of transportation seating spaces, present and future. Appl Ergon 65:130–138.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Seidl A, Trieb R, Wirsching H-J et al (2016) SizeNorthAmerica—the new North American anthropometric survey: conceptual design, implementation and results. In: Advances in physical ergonomics and human factors. Springer, pp 457–468Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schmidt S, Amereller M, Franz M et al (2013) A literature review on optimum and preferred joint angles in automotive sitting posture. Appl Ergon 45(2):247–260.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.04.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Park J, Ebert SM, Reed MP et al (2016) Statistical models for predicting automobile driving postures for men and women including effects of age. Hum Factors 58(2):261–278.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815610249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kyung G, Nussbaum MA (2010) Assessment of aging effects on drivers’ perceptual and behavioral responses using subjective ratings and pressure measures. Meas Behav 2010:318Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Porter JM, Marshall R, Case K et al (2008) Inclusive design for the mobility impaired. In: Duffy VG (ed) Handbook of digital human modeling: research for applied ergonomics and human factors engineering. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bubb H, Grünen RE, Remlinger W (2015) Anthropometric vehicle design. In: Bubb H, Bengler K, Grünen RE et al (eds) Automobilergonomie. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, WiesbadenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cyganski R (2015) Automated vehicles and automated driving from a demand modeling perspective. In: Bubb H, Bengler K, Grünen RE et al (eds) Automobilergonomie. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kamp I (2012) The influence of car-seat design on its character experience. Appl Ergon 43(2):329–335.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2011.06.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stadler S, Hirz M, Thum K et al (2013) Conceptual full-vehicle development supported by integrated computer-aided design methods. Comput-Aided Des Appl 10(1):159–172.  https://doi.org/10.3722/cadaps.2013.159-172CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sibashis Parida
    • 1
    • 2
  • Samuel Brock
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sylvester Abanteriba
    • 2
  • Mattias Franz
    • 1
  1. 1.BMW GroupMunichGermany
  2. 2.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations