KR19990031822A - Optimal Positioning Method for Automobile Interior Parts - Google Patents

Abstract

The present invention, based on the ergonomic design principles, by selecting the optimal position of the car interior parts to satisfy the various physical conditions of the driver through the human CAD Model to be considered in the initial design process of the car A method for optimizing the location of a car's interior parts.The main design factor and the main design factor are classified based on the priority in terms of importance among a number of design factors for the design of a car interior space. Considering first, the present invention relates to a method for optimal positioning of automotive interior parts according to the present invention, which adopts an iterative arrangement process that considers the main design factors in a state where the main design factors are determined.

According to the present invention, it is possible to effectively shorten the design period, as well as to drastically reduce the cost of design change. In addition, there is an effect that can improve the usability and maximize customer satisfaction.

Description

Optimal Positioning Method for Automobile Interior Parts

The present invention relates to a method for optimal positioning of automotive interior parts, and more particularly, by selecting an optimal location of automobile interior parts to satisfy various physical conditions of drivers using a human CAD model. It is about the optimal positioning method of car interior parts to be considered in the initial design process.

Recently, as interest in automobiles increases, automobile manufacturers are required to shift their awareness of automobiles. Yamamoto Chairman Mazda Motors's statement that "cars are not living machines but living spaces" is a statement based on this transformation of consciousness. According to the Canadian Automobile Association's survey, satisfaction with the car's interior design is responsible for 70% of purchasing behavior, and driving comfort has become a key concept in car design. This situational change has attracted a great deal of attention in ergonomic design, but due to the lack of suitable tools and techniques, it is mostly applied only to evaluation of products after production.

In order to enhance the competitiveness of the product in the reality that customer needs are diversified and the life cycle of the product is being shortened, it is urgently required to develop a technique for improving product usability from the early stage of product design. In the field of ergonomics, studies are actively conducted in this respect, and among them, the human CAD model (or Ergonomic Man Model) is the most convenient technique for integrating with production technology and evaluating usability at the design stage.

The human CAD model refers to a computerized human model developed to perform the ergonomic evaluation process required for product design by shaping the operator in the CAD system. The human CAD model can reduce the development time and cost of the product by allowing the evaluation of the use of the final product at the design stage by moving away from the method of evaluating the product using a prototype after the product design as in the prior art. It is a tool to make it.

After Fetter developed the human body to represent various positions in 1960, BOEMAN, Cyberman, COMBIMAN, ErgoSPACE, and SAMMIE (System for Aiding Man) Tools such as Machine Interaction Evaluation, Jack and Mannequin have been developed and released.

Bowman was not very usable due to the early manikin or oversimplification developed by Boeing for the design of the cockpit. Of the many human models, the first human model to be involved in car design is Cyberman, developed by Chrysler.

As shown in FIG. 1, the cyberman shaped the human body into 15 links, and the angle of each joint was configured to be interactively designated by the user. It is mainly used for simulation of driver's and passenger's posture, driving while driving, and opening trunk. Cyberman's representation of the delay uses a wire frame, but there is a disadvantage that it is not easy to distinguish between the human body model and the system to be evaluated due to the duplication of the expression form.

ErgoSPACE, SAMMIE, and Jack have been developed as general purpose human body models. It can be used effectively for evaluation. SAMMIE, developed in the UK, is a human body model capable of operator's motion function test and visibility test, which is the most advanced ergonomic evaluation function compared to the conventional human CAD model and is commercially available. In addition, Mannequin, previously listed, was developed in 1995 as a human body model that can be used on a personal computer.

Recently, ergonomic models with improved graphics capabilities along with various ergonomic evaluation functions have been developed and supplied as commercial products.

Typical human models include Safework developed in Canada, RAMSIS developed in Germany, and MDHMS developed by McDonald Douglas.

Safework is a general-purpose human body model developed by GENICOM, Canada, and uses multivariate analysis in the technique of analyzing anthropometric data, the most important part of the human body model. Through the efforts to create a more appropriate human figure, it includes most of the functions provided by the human CAD model developed so far.

In particular, Safework saves the user's know-how through the concept of a library so that it can be used for later analysis and features a quantitative comparison between driving postures. Boeing, Chrysler and GM are currently working on new product development using Safework.

RAMSIS was developed exclusively for automotive design with the support of the German Automobile Association (FAT) and is used by German automakers such as BMW and Audi. Currently, Samsung Motors and Daewoo Motors are conducting development research using Safework and RAMSIS, respectively.

The term “package layout” refers to the design process that improves lift, visibility / watchability, occupancy, and operability through proper placement of parts in the vehicle. It is only called seating package.

In general, when developing a new car, the work performed at the initial design stage is the determination of occupant envelope. This process is to secure interior space, arrange seats, displays and control elements in consideration of driver and passenger safety and convenience. It is also a process of engineering the concept of vehicle development.

In the package layout, the position of the hip point, etc., which is a standard of the vehicle design, is determined, and the amount of movement of the seat, the mounting position of the steering wheel, etc., for driving while maintaining a comfortable posture, Since the driver's posture is determined according to the package layout, the driver's posture has a significant influence on securing visibility, driving fatigue, and ease of operation. Thus, package layout is the most typical application of ergonomics, which is why ergonomics should be involved from the early stages of automotive development.

Conventional package layout methods that have been used up to now, as shown in Figure 2, using a two-dimensional mannequin called a H-point machine (H-point machine) using a variety of American cars on a two-dimensional drawing It was a way of applying the design criteria (or their own design criteria) from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).

However, this method of using a two-dimensional mannequin has the following problems.

First, although the vehicle drawing on the CAD has three-dimensional data, since the mannequin is two-dimensional, the verification of the width is impossible since the three-dimensional data is not available for evaluation.

Second, the human body data represented by the mannequin is limited. Currently, the American man tenth percentile (10 ^th percentile), Manet Queen only exist on the 50th percentile (50 ^th percentile), 95-th percentile (95 ^th percentile), so evaluation of various medical conditions, each possible In particular, it is not possible to evaluate the physical characteristics of Koreans. For Koreans, the ratio of upper and lower limbs is significantly different compared to westerners, so designing on the basis of American data makes it difficult for Koreans to take a comfortable driving posture.

Third, because only the data about the lower limbs are provided, the mannequin without the arm attached is not evaluated for various control devices. In addition, since the mannequin is not moved even when the upper limb is attached, it is impossible to evaluate the operation made during driving. For example, when operating a gear shift lever, it is impossible to know whether the elbow is in contact with the console box.

Fourth, quantitative evaluation of posture is difficult. Currently, with mannequins, it is difficult to assess the relative suitability between two postures, and only examine whether the foot touches the pedal and whether the body part contacts the vehicle parts. The location of the parts determines various driving positions, but the suitability of these design alternatives cannot be evaluated.

These problems make it difficult to incorporate ergonomic design guidelines in the packaging phase, that is, in the early stages of vehicle design, which in turn means the need for the use of human CAD models. will be.

Among the many areas of ergonomics, the most closely related to package layout is the field of anthropometry. This does not only mean data about the size of the human body, but also refers to functional human data related to the work and at the same time the range of motion, the comfortable joint angle, the visual field, etc. Human data are needed. Based on this, drivers of various sizes included in the design range at the packaging stage secure a space for driving while taking a comfortable position and determine the positions of various components.

The various standards related to packaging, which have been adopted as a standard of the American Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), have been established based on human data, but suggest the optimal driving posture through systematic analysis of human characteristics and based on the hip point. Rather than determining the location of the) and eye points, it is a method based on statistical data for a number of drivers. The criteria for the eyelips that define the position of the driver's eyes (the compound word of eye and ellipse) and the criteria for seat position are all determined based on statistical data. Therefore, if the driver fails to take the optimum position due to incorrect packaging, it is impossible to exclude the possibility that a position that is not related to an ergonomically desirable position is frequently adopted. In particular, it is clear that there will be a lot of people to apply directly to Koreans based on actual data on Americans.

Therefore, the present invention has been devised to solve such a problem, and based on the ergonomic design principles, the optimal position of the interior parts of automobiles is determined to satisfy various physical conditions of drivers through a human CAD model. The present invention relates to a method for optimal positioning of automotive interior parts, which can be selected for consideration in the initial design process of automobiles.

1 is a diagram illustrating the human body of the cyberman in 15 links.

2 is an exemplary view showing an example using a two-dimensional mannequin of the H-point machine,

3 is a flow chart showing a preferred embodiment of the method for optimal positioning of automotive interior parts in accordance with the present invention;

4 is an exemplary view showing driving posture and joint angle for each level of posture comfort;

5 is an exemplary view showing that the position of the appropriate buttocks of the male 95th percentile and the female fifth percentile with respect to the current sheet height is determined according to the SAE method.

6 is a view showing the position and driving position of the buttocks where the comfort score of both the male 95th percentile and the female fifth percentile can be 90 or more points.

7 is a view showing the position of the steering wheel for maintaining the posture as shown in FIG.

FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating a new driving posture, in which the male 95th percentile is adjusted to 90 points or more, and the female fifth percentile is adjusted to 85 points or more.

9A is an exemplary view showing the results of visibility evaluation for the current gauge panel arrangement;

Figure 9b is an exemplary view showing a result of improving the phenomenon blocked by the steering wheel.

In order to achieve the above object, the method for optimally positioning the interior parts of automobiles according to the present invention is based on the main design factors and the main design factors based on the priority in terms of importance among a plurality of design factors for the design of the vehicle interior space. After categorizing the design elements, the package design for the main design factors meets the constraints of the main design factors that are variably determined, and is adjusted and arranged to be applicable within the basic structural range of the vehicle body. It is characterized by adopting an iterative layout process that satisfies the constraints of the main design factors determined by the packaging plan for the main design factors in the state and is applicable within the basic structural range of the vehicle body.

In general, considerations regarding the interior space design of a vehicle include the position of the buttocks, which are design reference points, the movement distance of the seat, which is the basis for the vertical / horizontal movement amount, the position of the pedals, the position of the steering wheel, the speedometer, The position of the instrument panel such as the flow meter, the position of the gear shift lever, the position of the audio button, etc. are representative.

Each of these factors cannot be determined independently of each other, but is organically connected to each other through the physical condition of the driver. In particular, the relationship between the buttocks, the pedals and the steering wheel has the characteristic that the design value of one design factor is a precondition for the determination of another factor. Due to these characteristics, it is judged that an iterative layout that is repeatedly arranged according to design values of other design factors is more effective than a sequential layout that sequentially determines each design factor. The present invention is also based on this design concept.

However, as mentioned earlier, it is difficult to consider them simultaneously in an iterative layout process because many design factors must be considered in the packaging of the car interior space. Therefore, in the present invention, only the most important packaging factors such as buttock point, pedal position and steering wheel position are considered first, and then other factors such as gear lever and center fascia are given with the positions of these three points as given conditions. It is characterized by applying a two-phase layout method for placing a back.

To date, many design guidelines related to packaging have been proposed, especially in the European ergonomic world, and have been used as a design guide by the American Society of Automotive Engineers. These design criteria include the recommended angle of each body joint in relation to the optimal driving posture, the appropriate clearance between internal parts and body parts, the operable range of each body joint, the limitation of the placement of various adjustment devices, the proper field of view, etc. .

These design criteria can be understood as a concept of constraints as a rule that designers must follow when designing a vehicle. In other words, the various control devices should be arranged within the reach of the arm in a sitting position, and for safety reasons, the built-in parts must have a minimum free space with the body. Thus, the package layout can be approached by converting it into a search operation that finds any layout that satisfies all given constraints within the space inside the vehicle.

The present invention proposes an optimal positioning method for automobile interior parts by constraining ergonomic design criteria and finding a layout that satisfies this through repetitive searching.

On the other hand, as a system for performing a preferred embodiment of the method for optimal positioning of automotive interior parts according to the present invention can perform interactive input and output with the designer, and programmatically simulated according to the designer's input It is desirable to use this possible CAD system.

In this study, we used Genicom's Safework system as a simulation system, and derived the basic design of the interior of the car in accordance with the ergonomic design guidelines, and evaluated the derived design. The figures provided below are obtained through this simulation system.

Hereinafter, with reference to the accompanying drawings a preferred embodiment of the optimal positioning method of the vehicle interior parts according to the present invention will be described.

Figure 3 is a flow chart showing a preferred embodiment of the method for optimal positioning of automotive interior parts according to the present invention.

As shown in FIG. 3, the preferred embodiment of the method for optimally positioning the interior parts of an automobile according to the present invention first generates a human CAD model for generating a human CAD model of an appropriate range to be considered when designing a vehicle to be evaluated into CAD data. Step S10 is performed.

In order to derive a packaging scheme that satisfies all of the various drivers, the present invention considers the female 5 ^th percentile to the male 95 ^th percentile. However, for reasons such as cost, relatively small women may be excluded from the market and the female 50 ^th percentile may be considered.

After generating the human CAD model, in the constraint setting step (S20), the designer sets the evaluation criteria and constraints related to the packaging according to the design concept of the vehicle. This may take into account the minimum of the free space and the target comfort score of the driving posture.

In order to use the analysis results of the driving posture using the human CAD model as a standard for comparing the packaging plans, a criterion for evaluating the superiority of each posture is required. Human posture can be expressed quantitatively through joint angles. In the present invention, the optimal joint angle that is the joint angle causing the optimal driving posture ( A _op Evaluation joint angle from A _i Angle Deviation, which is a deviation of A _d ) As an evaluation criterion, and based on the score, C _p ) To compare the driving posture quantitatively. Current evaluation joint angle ( A _i Is the optimal joint angle ( A _op ), The more the discomfort felt by a person increases more rapidly, the more the discomfort function (the second loss function, as shown in Equation 1) D _p ) Is defined as Equation 1, and the comfort score according to Equation 2 C _p Calculate

D _p = μ (A _d ) ²

A _d = A _op -A _i

C _p = 100-D _p

In Equation 1, μ Is a penalty coefficient.

Comfort score (or comfort function, C _p ) Takes the form of a quadratic function so that the current joint angle ( A _i Is the optimal joint angle ( A _op ), The more the score goes down.

Meanwhile, in the present invention, the joint angle deviation ( A _d ) Is assumed to be a discrete variable rather than a continuous variable. This is because humans do not feel the deviation of minute joint angle changes of about 1 ° to 2 °. For this reason, the results of the research on the optimal posture show a slight difference from each other, and thus the optimal joint angle is expressed as a value having a predetermined range.

In the present invention, in order to reflect this fact, the discomfort function is corrected and applied to a step function.

In addition, the overall driving posture score may be expressed as an average of the comfort score of each joint, but since the severity of discomfort is felt differently according to each joint region, the comfort score is obtained by assigning different weights to each joint. Penalty coefficient value of uncomfortable function ( μ ) Can be differently assigned to each joint to reflect the weight of each joint in the discomfort function, and consequently to the comfort score.

In the present invention, the final equation of the discomfort function derived for posture analysis is shown in Equation 3.

| A _d | = | A _op -A _i |

here, And Are discrete discomfort functions and discrete joint angle deviations, respectively R Is the unit step value of the step function, μ _i Denotes a weighted penalty coefficient value for each joint.

In order to derive a comfort score from the discomfort function of Equation 3, data about the maximum operating range of each joint, the optimal posture angle of each joint and the angle range of each joint, and the discomfort weight of each joint are needed.

Finally, the discrete comfort function ( Or comfort score) is as shown in Equation 4.

Although it is most preferable to extract each data through experiments, in the present invention, the data were first collected through conventional research results.

First, the optimal posture angle of each joint is used by the optimal driving posture data proposed by the American Association of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the angle range of each joint is published in 1986 by G. Trebble in "A probabilistic method for Based on the findings of assessing the longitudinal habitability of a car and the study by JM Judic et al. in 1933, "More objectives tools for the integration of postural comfort in automotive seat design," Secure.

The discomfort of the joint movements is a study of "The effects of neutral posture deviations on perceived joint discomfort ratings in sitting and standing postures" published in 1993 by AM Genaidy and W. Karwowski. Based on the results and the research of "Ranking of static non-neutral postures around the joints of the upper extremity and the spine" published in 1995 by AM Genaidy et al.

Discrete Comfort Function (Equation 4) In order to increase the accuracy of the discrete comfort score derived from the), the discomfort weight for each joint is set differently according to flexion and extension.

4 is an illustration showing the driving posture and joint angle for each level of posture comfort, Figure 4 (a) is optimal (100 points), (b) satisfaction (90 points), (c) is allowed (80 points) ) Is an example.

If the placement criteria, that is, the constraints are determined, the evaluation result of the current packaging plan is extracted according to the evaluation criteria preset for the current packaging plan in the current package plan evaluation step S30.

Thereafter, in the first constraint satisfaction determination step (S31), it is determined whether the extracted evaluation result satisfies the set constraint.

As a result of the evaluation of the first constraint satisfaction determination step S31, if all the constraints are satisfied for the current packaging proposal, the constraint enhancement step S32 may be performed after strengthening the constraints to obtain an improved packaging scheme. In order to extract the evaluation result for the process, the process returns to the evaluation step (S30). For example, the constraints are reinforced, such as raising posture comfort targets for all physical conditions from 80 points to 90 points.

On the other hand, if the evaluation result of the constraint evaluation step (S30), the constraint is not satisfied, in the main design factor change step (S40) after changing the butt point, which is the design reference point, and changes the range of the steering wheel based on the changed butt point. Decide

In the first buttock point changing step S41_1 constituting the buttock point changing step S41_1, a first buttock point in which a male 95 ^th percentile, which is a relatively tall person, may be relaxed may be obtained. In the second buttocks change step (S41_2), after calculating a second buttock point in which the female fifth ^th percentile, which is a relatively short person, can take a comfortable posture, calculating the sheet movement distance (S41_3). ), The sheet moving distance is obtained from the first buttocks and the second buttocks.

When the taller person and the shorter person are both able to drive in a comfortable posture, the first buttocks point and the second buttock point are determined, respectively, and the seat movement distance is determined through the steering wheel position changing step (S42). And a position of the steering wheel based on the second buttocks and the seat movement distance.

In the steering wheel position changing step (S42), the change range of the steering wheel is determined by determining a tilting range of the steering wheel and a telescoping range before and after the steering wheel in order to reflect body differences for a plurality of people.

Subsequently, the first applicable determination step S50 of evaluating whether or not the determined steering wheel change range is applicable packaging within the basic structural range of the vehicle body is performed.

As a result of the determination of the first applicable determination step S50, if the determined range of change of the steering wheel cannot be allowed within the basic structural range of the vehicle body, the pedal position change step S60 changes the pedal position.

In general, the position of the pedal is difficult to move toward the seat in order to secure a legroom larger in relation to occupancy, and in the opposite direction, there are many factors that change the design of the engine room. In most cases it is difficult.

Thereafter, the second applicable determination step (S70) of evaluating whether the changed pedal position is applicable packaging within the basic structural range of the vehicle body is performed.

As a result of the determination of the second applicable judgment step S70, if the changed pedal position is applicable within the basic structural range of the vehicle body, the hip point changing step S41 is performed to readjust the changed main design factors with respect to the changed pedal position. Go back

On the other hand, if the result of the determination of the second applicable determination step S70 is that the changed pedal position is not applicable within the basic structural range of the vehicle body, the constraint relaxation step S80 relaxes the constraint in order to obtain an improved packaging scheme. After that, the process returns to the current package evaluation step (S30) to extract the evaluation result for the relaxed constraint.

In other words, if the problem cannot be solved by shifting the pedal position, the above process is repeated after the constraints are relaxed to expand the search space.

On the other hand, if the determination result of the first applicable determination step (S50) can determine that the range of change of the determined steering wheel can be allowed within the basic structural range of the vehicle body, the sub design factor change step (S90) is relatively less important than the main design factor. Carry out packaging changes to subdesign factors.

For example, if the major design factors such as butt point, pedal position, and range of steering wheel change are determined, the sub-design factors, gear shift lever, center fascia, and gauge panel, are based on these three points. Perform a two-step batch process on the panel.

Subsequently, in the second constraint satisfaction determination step (S100), after determining whether the changed packaging plan for the sub design factor satisfies the constraint, if the constraint is satisfied, the process ends; otherwise, the sub design factor change step (S90). Go back to

Hereinafter, the above execution process will be described in more detail through simulation results.

Changes the buttocks (ie seat position) in accordance with the most commonly applied SAE design criteria. Based on the work of N.I. Philippart et al., This method is obtained using Equation 5 as a method of determining the most suitable seat position (distance from the pedal) with respect to the current seat height.

here, X ₉₅ Is the distance from the pedal for the male 95 ^th percentile, X ₅ Is the distance from the pedal for the female 5 ^th percentile, Z Is the height from the floor to the H-point.

Figure 5 shows that the position of the hip point of the titration 95th percentile male (male 95 ^th percentile) and the 5th percentile female (5 ^th percentile female) of the current height of the sheet determined according to the SAE system.

Male 95th percentile for (male 95 ^th percentile) is calculated as being the proper location hip point 923mm is spaced from the pedal, female 5th percentile for (female 5 ^th percentile) is 707mm is spaced from the hip points pedal Position is calculated as appropriate. In this case, it is calculated that the movement distance of the sheet should be at least 216 mm.

However, even if the position of the seat is determined by the SAE method, the comfort score according to the driving posture is 66 for men and 77 for women, which is not satisfactory. It proved that driving posture could not be guaranteed. This is because the method of determining the gluteal point proposed by N.I. Philippart et al. Is a statistical relation derived only by considering the length of the lower limbs.

In the present invention, first, the "comfort comfort of male and female drivers (satisfaction level) of 90 points or more" is set as an arrangement criterion, that is, a constraint condition, and then a driving posture that satisfies this is searched using a human CAD model.

Unlike the method based on NI Philippart et al., Posture analysis of all parts of the body determines the position of the seat causing the optimal driving posture and derives the amount of movement of the seat to satisfy various physical conditions. .

95th percentile male (male 95 ^th percentile) and 5th percentile female (female 5 ^th percentile) scores both comfort and driving position of the hips that can be more than 90 points of attitude is the same as FIG.

Men 95th percentile (male 95 ^th percentile) and women's 5th percentile (female 5 ^th percentile) position of the hip point is analyzed as being the driver in a comfortable position hayeoyaman located with each 872mm and 695mm away from the pedal for It became.

This is to make the position of the legs and arms more comfortable as the position pulled forward 51mm for men, 12mm for women than the arrangement by the SAE method shown in FIG.

And in order to satisfy both the driver of the physical condition such as large and small it was shown that the amount of movement of the seat should be at least 177mm.

On the other hand, in order to drive in the posture as shown in Figure 6, the position of the steering wheel (steering wheel) as well as the position of the seat (steering wheel) must be newly determined to take the position of the shoulder and arm comfortably. The position of the steering wheel for maintaining the posture as shown in FIG. 6 is the same as that of FIG. 7, and in this case, the telescoping range of the steering wheel should be about 114 mm.

However, in the case of the steering wheel, it is difficult to change the length of 70 mm or more due to the device problem of the key box, the rigidity problem according to the amount of forward and backward movement of the steering wheel, and the like. Therefore, the 114mm length variation as shown in FIG. 7 can be said to be a packaging solution that is difficult to apply to vehicle development in reality. This problem is not a problem with the steering wheel or the seat position itself, but a problem that cannot be solved by changing the body size.

Thus, the first established criterion, i.e., constraints relaxation, finds a practically applicable solution.

Female drivers than everyone because it is a reality that male drivers a lot of men and women at least 90 points posture comfort even men condition 95th percentile (male 95 ^th percentile) is 90 points higher, Women 5th percentile (female 5 ^th percentile) 85 points After mitigating and adjusting as described above, a new driving attitude as shown in FIG. 8 is derived.

The elbow angle of the female driver is slightly bent, and in this case, the length variation of the steering wheel is about 46mm, which is an applicable design value.

When the position of the buttocks, the amount of movement of the seat, and the position of the steering wheel are determined in the arrangement form as shown in FIG. 8, a two-stage arrangement operation for determining the positions of the gauge panel and various steering apparatuses is performed based on this.

First, it is evaluated whether a gauge such as a speedometer is visually blocked by rims and spokes of the steering wheel, and then the most readable position and the angle of attachment of the gauge panel are determined.

Using the camera function mounted on the human CAD model's eyes, it performs the same visual / visual analysis as seen by a real driver.

FIG. 9A is an exemplary view illustrating a result of visibility evaluation of a current gauge panel packaging scheme, and FIG. 9B is an exemplary view illustrating a result of improving a phenomenon blocked by a steering wheel.

In addition to the location of the gear shift lever, the position of the audio adjustment buttons, the position of the ventilation facilitators, the proper position and height of the console box to perform the armrest function, and the position of the frequency brake, Packaging work is performed using a human CAD model.

As described above, these internal parts are determined through posture analysis and visibility / visibility analysis, which can be operated comfortably by drivers in various conditions. However, such adjustment devices are difficult to provide a fluctuation range (adjustment width) according to the body size, while repeatedly adjusting the constraints to obtain a compromise that can be easily operated by many. Simply placing on the basis of the average height driver can be inconvenient for everyone.

Terminologies used herein are terms defined in consideration of functions in the present invention, which may vary according to the intention or customs of those skilled in the art, and the definitions should be made based on the contents throughout the present application. will be.

In addition, since the present invention has been described through the preferred embodiment of the present invention, in view of the technical difficulty aspects of the present invention, those having ordinary skill in the art can easily be different from another embodiment of the present invention. Since modifications may be made, it is obvious that both the embodiments and modifications cited in the above description belong to the claims of the present invention.

As described in detail above, based on the ergonomic design principles, the human CAD model is used to select the optimal location of the vehicle interior parts to satisfy the various physical conditions of the driver. In the optimal positioning method of automotive interior parts that can be considered in the above, the main design factors and the main design factors are classified based on the priority in terms of importance among the many design factors for the design of the interior space of the car. According to the method for optimally positioning the interior parts of an automobile according to the present invention which adopts an iterative arrangement process that considers the main design factors after the primary design factors are determined first, the design period can be effectively shortened. In addition, the cost of design changes can be dramatically reduced. There is an advantage in that. In addition, there is an effect that can improve the usability and maximize customer satisfaction.

Claims (14)

Classifying a main design factor and a main design factor based on a priority in terms of importance among a plurality of design factors for the design of a vehicle interior space; A first step of selecting such that the packaging plan for the main design factor satisfies the constraints of the main design factor and is applicable within the basic structural range of the vehicle body; And In the state in which the packaging plan for the main design factor is determined, the second step of selecting the package design for the main design factor to satisfy the constraints of the main design factor variably and being applicable within the basic structural range of the vehicle body is repeatedly performed. Optimal positioning method of the vehicle interior parts, characterized in that for adopting the placement process. The method of claim 1, wherein the main design factor, A method for optimal positioning of automotive interior parts, including the position of a buttock point on a vehicle seat, a range of steering wheel changes, and a pedal position. The method of claim 1, wherein the main design factor, A method for optimal positioning of automotive interior parts comprising a gear shift lever, a center fascia and a gauge panel. The method of claim 1, wherein the first step, A human CAD model generation step of generating a human CAD model of an appropriate range to be considered when designing a vehicle to be evaluated into CAD data; A constraint setting step of setting evaluation criteria and constraints related to packaging according to a design concept of the vehicle; A current packaging plan evaluation step of extracting an evaluation result according to a predetermined evaluation criterion for the current packaging plan using the human CAD model; A first constraint condition determination step of determining whether the extracted evaluation result satisfies a set constraint condition; As a result of the evaluation of the first constraint satisfaction determination step, if the current packaging plan satisfies all the constraints, the constraints are strengthened to obtain a more improved packaging plan, and then the evaluation result of the enhanced constraints is extracted. Reinforcing constraints to return to evaluating the current packaging plan to make; And And a main design factor changing step of changing the main design factor if the current packaging proposal does not satisfy the constraint as a result of the evaluation of the constraint condition evaluating step. The method of claim 4, wherein the human CAD model, Women fifth percentile (female 5 ^th percentile) from the 95th percentile male (male 95 ^th percentile) considered selection of the optimum position of the automotive interior components wherein up to. The method of claim 4, wherein the constraint is, Evaluation from the optimal joint angle, which is the joint angle that causes the optimal driving posture Optimal positioning of automotive interior parts, characterized in that it is defined as a comfort score inversely proportional to the angle deviation, which is the deviation of the joint angle. Way. The method of claim 6, wherein the comfort score, And a discomfort score proportional to a value obtained by subtracting the joint angle deviation from a preset maximum comfort score. The method of claim 7, wherein the discomfort score, And a penalty coefficient value multiplied by a square of the discrete joint angle deviation obtained by discretizing the joint angle deviation in a predetermined step unit. The method of claim 8, wherein the penalty coefficient value, As the degree of discomfort for each joint is set to reflect different weights for each joint, the optimum positioning method of the vehicle interior parts, characterized in that to reflect the optimal degree of discomfort. The method of claim 8, wherein the penalty coefficient value, Optimal positioning method for the interior parts of automobiles, characterized by reflecting different weights according to bending motion and bending motion of a joint. The method of claim 6, wherein the optimal joint angle, A method for optimal positioning of automotive interior parts using the guidelines of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The method of claim 4, wherein the changing the main design factor, A first buttock point changing step of finding a first buttock point at which a male 95 ^th percentile, which is a relatively tall person, can take a comfortable position; Relatively small key in a human female the 5th percentile (5 ^th percentile female) and a second hip point changing step to obtain the second hip points to take a comfortable position; Calculating a sheet moving distance from the first buttocks and the second buttocks; A steering wheel position changing step of determining a change range of the steering wheel based on the first buttocks, the second butts and the seat movement distance; A first applicability determining step of evaluating whether the determined steering wheel change range is a packaging plan applicable within the basic structural range of the vehicle body; A pedal position changing step of changing a pedal position of a vehicle if the determined range of the steering wheel cannot be allowed within the basic structural range of the vehicle body as a result of the determination of the first applicable determination step; Evaluate whether the modified pedal position is a packaging scheme applicable within the basic structural range of the vehicle body, and if the modified pedal position is applicable within the basic structural range of the vehicle body, then the modified main design factors for the modified pedal position. A second applicability step of returning to the first buttocks change step to readjust; And As a result of the determination of the second applicable determination step, if the changed pedal position is not applicable within the basic structural range of the vehicle body, the constraint condition may be applied to expand the search space to obtain a more improved packaging scheme. And after the relaxation, the constraint relaxation step of returning to the evaluation of the current packaging plan to repeatedly extract the evaluation result of the relaxed constraint. The method of claim 12, wherein changing the steering wheel position, In order to reflect the body differences for a large number of people, the optimum position of the interior parts of the vehicle, characterized in that the change range of the steering wheel is determined by determining the tilting range and the telescoping range of the steering wheel. Selection method. The method of claim 1, wherein the second step, A sub-design factor changing step of changing a packaging plan for the sub-design factor if the range of the determined steering wheel can be allowed within the basic structural range of the vehicle body as a result of the determination of the first applicable determination step; And And determining whether the modified packaging plan for the sub design factor satisfies the constraint, and if the constraint is satisfied, terminates; otherwise, a second constraint satisfaction determination step is returned to the sub design factor changing step. Optimal location selection method of the car interior parts, characterized in that.