Anthropometric Factors in Seat Comfort Evaluation: Identification and Quantification of Body Dimensions Affecting Seating Comfort

  • Benjamin HecklerEmail author
  • Manuel Wohlpart
  • Klaus Bengler
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 826)


The objective of the presented study was the identification and quantification of anthropometric factors in seat comfort evaluation. Therefore, a “comfort-critical” and a “comfort-reference” seat were evaluated by 70 participants (38 men, 32 women) with a questionnaire consisting of 22 items. To identify anthropometric effects a certain requirement had to be fulfilled. The first analysis should show that the “comfort-reference” seat was rated better, compared to the basic “comfort-critical” seat, due to its additional adjustment tracks. The results showed that the “comfort-reference” seat was assessed better in 19 items. Based on these findings a second analysis was investigating, if the assumed anthropometric effects occurred more frequently on the worse rated “comfort-critical” seat. Therefore the participants were divided in three groups depending on their body dimensions. A statistical comparison of the three groups were performed for eight measured anthropometric variables. The number of significant differences between the body dimension groups were higher for the “comfort-critical” seat compared to the “comfort-reference” seat. The data show that anthropometric effects are existing in seat comfort evaluation and a deeper understanding of how body dimension affecting seat comfort needs to be researched.


Anthropometry Seat comfort Evaluation method 



The authors want to thank the AUDI AG for supporting the experiment, by supplying the test cars and measurement tools (tablet, pressure measuring system, facilities).


  1. 1.
    Kolich M (2004) Predicting automobile seat comfort using a neural network. Int J Ind Ergon 33(4):285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hiemstra-van Mastrigt S, Groenesteijn L, Vink P, Kuijt-Evers LF (2017) Predicting passenger seat comfort and discomfort on the basis of human, context and seat characteristics: a literature review. Ergonomics 60(7):889–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kolich M (2003) Automobile seat comfort: occupant preferences vs. anthropometric accommodation. Appl Ergon 34(2):177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Park SJ, Kim CB, Kim CJ, Lee JW (2000) Comfortable driving postures for Koreans. Int J Ind Ergon 26(4):489–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paul G, Daniell N, Fraysse F (2012) Patterns of correlation between vehicle occupant seat pressure and anthropometry. Work 41(Supplement 1):2226–2231Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kyung G, Nussbaum MA (2008) Driver sitting comfort and discomfort (part II): relationships with and prediction from interface pressure. Int J Ind Ergon 38(5–6):526–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kyung G, Nussbaum MA (2013) Age-related difference in perceptual responses and interface pressure requirements for driver seat design. Ergonomics 56(12):1795–1805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ulherr A, Bengler K (2017) Bewertung von Sitzen. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft, 1–7Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kolich M (1999) Reliability and validity of an automobile seat comfort survey (No. 1999-01-3232). SAE Technical PaperGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schmidtke H, Groner P (1989) Handbuch der ergonomie: mit ergonomischen Konstruktionsrichtlinien und MethodenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin Heckler
    • 1
    Email author
  • Manuel Wohlpart
    • 1
  • Klaus Bengler
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of ErgonomicsTechnical University of MunichGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations