Ergonomic Study to Compare Digital Human

Modeling Simulation Versus Real Life

and Momentum

Caroline Massolino1(&), Salvador Ávila Filho1, Ivone Cerqueira1,

Renê Pimentel1, Napoleão Neto1, and Cristiane Fragoso2
1
UFBA, Federal University of Bahia, Industrial Engineering Program,
Salvador, Bahia, Brazil
massolinoccm@yahoo.com.br,
{avilasalv,pimentel}@ufba.br,
ivonecscerqueira@hotmail.com, napoleao87@gmail.com
2
IFBA, Instituto Federal da Bahia, Salvador, Brazil
cristianemf13@gmail.com

Abstract. As part of Vehicle Company ongoing efforts to provide employees a

safe and healthy workplace. This study investigated how well ergonomics risk
assessments on simulations with digital human models match (DHM) the real-life
assessments obtaining on a car assembly line. The purpose is validated physical
results comparing to virtual analysis of open hood operation. First off all the
method used was measure the computer-aided design at virtual analysis to deter-
mine the open hood angle, hinge type, distance between hinge and point of force
application, hood center of mass and part weight were collected with a Design
Engineer. It was established three different angles to calculate three momentums to
compare with a real-life and strength capabilities at DHM. This document con-
cluded the validate results at virtual analysis to real life which means an anticipated
force value to open hood operation and the force calculated at virtual analysis.

Keywords: Digital human modeling
Momentum
Dynamometer

Ergonomics
Human factors

1 Introduction

Throughout the vehicle development process, people in different departments use a

variety of tools to represent users such as drivers, passengers and operators from
assembly process. It appears that recently many different companies have established
internal organizations to utilize this new digital human modeling technology. Seven
case studies reported [1] describe the successful use of various digital human models to
analyze and improve the physical ergonomics of different designs. This view is con-
sistent with the concept of reducing total design and engineering costs by using
computer-aided engineering (CAE) and digital mock-up (DMU) methods to achieve
rapid, virtual prototype development and testing, as diagrammed in Fig. 1 [2].
We have been using to vehicles assemblers considering different aspects of human–
vehicle interaction and when focusing on different physical environmental parameters,

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

D.N. Cassenti (ed.), Advances in Human Factors in Simulation and Modeling,
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 591, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-60591-3_46
massolinoccm@yahoo.com.br
504 C. Massolino et al.

Fig. 1. Typical development phases and hypothetical cost profiles believed to exist when using
a DMU (with human simulation) early in the design process compared to not using DMUs, which
results in increased prototype building and ergonomics evaluation costs late in the development
process.

such as geometry and forces. Traditionally, human–vehicle interactions have been

evaluated relatively late in the development process by using physical mock-ups [3].
The integration of human factors is then carried out in laboratory and field experiments,
which often are considered very expensive and time consuming [4]. Over the last 31
years, the utilization of human modeling tools has supported ergonomic evaluations in
virtual environments, hence reducing the need for physical tests. A human modeling tool
is a computer program that utilizes a human model in the creation, modification, pre-
sentation and analysis of, for example, human–vehicle interaction [5]. The tools are
meant to assist designers and engineers when as part of vehicle company ongoing efforts
to provide employees a safe and healthy workplace, the Vehicle Operations Division has
launched a proactive ergonomics program. This system has incorporated the use of
virtual tools and digital human models (DHM) to assess ergonomic assembly feasibility.
Digital human figure models (DHM) are now widely used for ergonomic analysis of
products and workplaces. In many organizations, DHM software is a tool of first resort
for answering questions relating to physical interaction between people and objects [6].
Digital human modeling (DHM) and virtual human simulation (e.g., 3DSSPP™, EAI
Jack®, RAMSIS) have been created to facilitate ergonomic evaluations [7]. Using these
tools, the visual scope and reach envelope of users representing specific populations can
be analyzed (e.g., EAI Jack®) [8]. Some DHM tools can calculate the biomechanical
attributes of manual handling operations (e.g., Anybody® Modeling System,
3DSSPP™) and predict physical fatigue and potential disorder risk. These analytical
tools can be used to identify and mitigate ergonomic problems of a designed product,
workstation, or job in order to promote human considerations and protect the users,
during an early stage of design [7].

massolinoccm@yahoo.com.br
 Ergonomic Study to Compare Digital Human Modeling Simulation 505

Virtual human simulation provides a quick, virtual representation of human beings

in a simulated working environment. Physical mock-up is no longer necessary, and
multiple aspects can be assessed with rapid computational efficiency. One of the main
issues with using virtual human simulation in some applications is that the movement
or motion is obtained through inverse kinematics, which gives the virtual human
robot-like, unnatural behavior [9].
The aim of integrating ergonomic evaluation methods into virtual reality (VR) is to
facilitate the work design process, enhance design efficiency, and lower the design cost.
Hypothetically, if a virtual environment (VE) could provide 100% fidelity then the
workload and performance in VE should be the same as in a real-life and the strength
capabilities to open the hood with a dynamometer. Practically, however, the main
concern is whether the indices in VE, which have a limited level of fidelity due to
economic and technical constraints, are consistent with the indices in real-life.
The presentation will highlight the advantages of using DHM in identifying
ergonomic concerns in advice in the design process. This study investigated how well
ergonomics risk assessments on simulations with DHM match the real-life assessments
obtaining on a car assembly line. The purpose is validated physical results (dy-
namometer) and comparing to virtual analysis of open hood operation.

2 Method

The study included three ergonomics simulations cases, four computer-aided design
(CAD) analysis and six cars at three different position of open hood angle.
First off all the method used was measure the CAD at virtual analysis to determine
the open hood angle, hinge type, distance between hinge, point of force application,
hood center of mass and part weight. It was established three different angles to
calculate three momentums as posture 1 (Pos 1), posture 2 (Pos 2) and posture 3 (Pos 3)
to compare with a real-life (dynamometer) and strength capabilities at DHM.
Force can be measured using multiple set-ups such as a dynamometer (Force Gauge).
It is necessary to identify the movement path of the operator (whole body or segment)
and the direction of forces (combination likely) that represent that movement path.
Establish good coupling between the force gauge and the object (resistance). The goal is
to ensure constant contact between the gauge and the object, and avoid any slipping.
Record the peak (effectively, the highest force obtained) AND the average force.
Reading during sustained movement (constant velocity). Record values for ALL
efforts observed in the movement path. Take these force measurements through the
most heavily loaded condition (worst-case scenario).
In the real-life scenario it was measured the force to open the hood using
dynamometer at the same three angles at virtual analysis. There were established two
positions on CAD, one position at hood to keep the dynamometer during the process to
open hood for all three posture: Pos 1, Pos 2 and Pos 3; the second position is a fix
point on car chassis in Fig. 2.
After that three different random heights were chosen, but they should be the same
during the actual measurement in Fig. 3.

massolinoccm@yahoo.com.br
506 C. Massolino et al.

Fig. 2. Computer-aided design (CAD) at virtual analysis to determine the open hood angle and
distance between hinge.

Fig. 3. Computer-aided design (CAD) at virtual analysis to determine the open hood angle and
distance between hinge.

Fig. 4. A marking was made on the hood in blue, in order to be able to place the dynamometer
during the movement to open hood.

massolinoccm@yahoo.com.br
 Ergonomic Study to Compare Digital Human Modeling Simulation 507

The dynamometer was positioned at real-environment as CAD reference for

position 1 (Pos 1), position 2 (Pos 2) and position 3 (Pos 3) in Fig. 4.
According to posture 1 (Pos 1) 543.1 mm of height in Fig. 5, posture 2 (Pos 2)
1008.1 mm Fig. 6 and posture 3 (Pos 3) 1240.6 mm in Fig. 7.

Fig. 5. Position 1 (Pos 1)

In each environment, the momentum calculation in each environment was based on

static force as open hood angle, hinge type, distance between hinge, point of force
application, hood center of mass and part weight as formula (1).

ð1Þ

massolinoccm@yahoo.com.br
508 C. Massolino et al.

Fig. 6. Position 2 (Pos 2)

Fig. 7. Position 3 (Pos 3)

There is DHM (Jack – Siemens) to validate this strength capabilities according to our
anthropometric data collected. The version of the Jack Static Strength Prediction (JSSP)
tool used by Vehicle Company is the Ergonomics Static Strength Prediction Solver
(FSSPS). There are two modes in which an assessment can be performed. The first mode
determines the implications of set hand loads that are manually entered into the inter-
face. This mode outputs torques, strengths and percent capable (%Cap) for each joint,

massolinoccm@yahoo.com.br
 Ergonomic Study to Compare Digital Human Modeling Simulation 509

and the %Caps were used to determine if the Task was considered as “acceptable” for
that trial. In this mode, the user selects the hand(s) in which the force is applied, if there
are any supporting hands or external support, and the frequency at which the force is
exerted. For the second mode, the user selects the Solve SSP button once the correct
posture of the digital human is attained according to each posture in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8. The DHM (Jack – Siemens) in posture 1, posture 2 and posture 3 at same position as
CAD and real-life.

This will show the maximum force that would still make the Task “acceptable”.
When support hands are used, it was not possible to output values for joints affected by
this support (as its force was not measured). For example, if the right hand was used for
an insertion, and the left hand was used to support the body, then only right arm values
would be output from the FSSPS and the left arm, trunk and leg values would be
blacked out in the Solver in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9. The Force Solver or strength capabilities for posture 1, posture 2 and posture 3 at same
position as CAD and real-life.

massolinoccm@yahoo.com.br
510 C. Massolino et al.

3 Result and Discussion

3.1 Results
This study we have a hood weight as 11 kg we are going to change for next steps the
hood hinge angle, operator angle to open the hood, distance 1, distance 2, dynamometer
force measurement to each position as soon as.
Posture 1. According to results for posture 1 there are distance 1º 549.29 mm, dis-
tance 2º 959.77 mm, weight 107.8 N, hood hinge angle 5.06º, operator to open hood
35.14º total force momentum is 61.1 N. The real-force (dynamometer measure) is
75.18 N. The maximum accepted force according to DHM is 81 N with a frequency to
repeat this movement eight hours per day of once each three minutes.
Posture 2. According to results for posture 2 there are distance 1º 446.86 mm, dis-
tance 2º 775.94 mm, weight 107.8 N, hood hinge angle 11.41º, operator to open hood
33.61º total force momentum is 58.8 N. The real-force (dynamometer measure) is
63.4 N. The maximum accepted force according to DHM is 74 N with a frequency to
repeat this movement eight hours per day of once each three minutes of once each three
minutes.
Posture 3. According to results for posture 3 there are distance 1º 347.58 mm, dis-
tance 2º 600.2 mm, weight 107.8 N, hood hinge angle 19.58º, operator to open hood
29.61º total force momentum is 52.1 N. The real-force (dynamometer measure) is
52.75 N. The maximum accepted force according to DHM is 104 N with a frequency
to repeat this movement eight hours per day of once each three minutes of once each
three minutes.
Results showed position (1) 22.9%, position (2) 7.82% and position (3) 1.25%
comparing virtual analysis with real life. At DHM environments, results position
(1) 32.73%, position (2) 25.85% and position (3) 100% greater than virtual analysis in
Table 1.

Table 1. Result comparative

According to real force measured with dynamometer at the six cars models to
posture 1 in Fig. 10.

massolinoccm@yahoo.com.br
 Ergonomic Study to Compare Digital Human Modeling Simulation 511

Pos 1
90

80 76.1 76.1 74.3 75.4

72.6
76.6
70
POS1
60 Expon. (POS1)

50

40
0 0 0 0 0 0

Fig. 10. Results force measurement for all six cars models for posture 1.

According to real force measured with dynamometer at the six cars models to
posture 2 in Fig. 11.

Pos 2
90

80

70 65.8 64.7
62.7 62 63.1 62.1 POS2
60 Expon. (POS2)

50

40
0 0 0 0 0 0

Fig. 11. Results force measurement for all six cars models for posture 2.

According to real force measured with dynamometer at the six cars models to
posture 3 in Fig. 12.

massolinoccm@yahoo.com.br
512 C. Massolino et al.

Pos 3
90

80

70
POS3
60 52.9 54.8 Expon. (POS3)
52.2 52.7 51.6 52.3

50

40
0 0 0 0 0 0

Fig. 12. Results force measurement for all six cars models for posture 2.

4 Conclusion

This document concluded the validate results at virtual analysis to real life (dy-
namometer) which means an anticipated force value to open hood operation, and the
force calculated at virtual analysis is closer than we found at real life results. At DHM
showed the operator has a strength capability to open the hood safe and healthy. In
summary, the Human in Process Simulate, along with the UGS Jack 8.3 DHM software
allowed an assembly process to be evaluated virtually, years and months prior to
having physical parts. The effort results between real and virtual studies are different.
The virtual effort results are lower compared with real results, but at virtual analysis we
can not include some points according to friction, dynamometer calibration, same
person are measuring, velocity of measurement, hood clean, center of mass correct,
hood weight correct. When we found results of measured closer from virtual and real is
when are closer to hinge. The mathematic account is validated. This is the cost asso-
ciated with fixing a job after it has been released from engineering. The result was an
early design change with minimal cost to the company.

References
1. Chaffin, D.B.: Digital Human Modeling for Vehicle and Workplace Design. SAE
International, Warrendale (2001)
2. Chaffin, D.B.: Experimental evaluation of a computational shoulder musculoskeletal model.
Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
and Center for Ergonomics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA (2007)

massolinoccm@yahoo.com.br
 Ergonomic Study to Compare Digital Human Modeling Simulation 513

3. Porter, J.M., Case, K., Freer, M.T., Bonney, M.C.: Computer-aided ergonomics design of
automobiles. In: Peacock, B., Karwowski, W. (eds.) Automotive Ergonomics. Taylor and
Francis, London (1993)
4. Helander, M.G.: Seven common reasons to not implement ergonomics. Int. J. Industr. Ergon.
25(1), 97–101 (1999)
5. Hanson, L.: Guide and documentation system to support digital human modeling applications.
Division of Ergonomics, Department of Design Sciences, Lund University, P.O. Box 118,
SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden and Saab Automobile AB, SE-461 80, Trollhättan, Sweden (2006)
6. Parkinson, M.B., Chaffin, D.B., Reed, M.P.: Center of pressure excursion capability in
performance of seated lateral-reaching tasks. Clin. Biomech. 21, 26–32 (2006)
7. Hu, B., Ma, L., Zhang, W., Salvendy, G., Chablat, D., Bennis, F.: Predicting real-world
ergonomic measurements by simulation in a virtual environment. Department of Industrial
Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, PR China. And Institut de Recherche en
Communications et en Cybernétique de Nantes, CNRS UMR 6597, Ecole Centrale de Nantes,
IRCCyN-1, rue de la Noë, BP 92 101, 44321, France (2010)
8. Chaffin, D.B., Nelson, C., Ianni, J.D.: Digital Human Modeling for Vehicle and Workplace
Design, pp. 82–87. SAE International, Warrendale (2001)
9. Chaffin, D.B., Erig, M.: Three-dimensional biomechanical static strength prediction model
sensitivity to postural and anthropometric inaccuracies. IIE Trans. 23(3), 215–227 (1991)

massolinoccm@yahoo.com.br