Page 1 of 14

13B-0103
Experimental Validation of the Computer Aided Design
Technique for Seat Comfort Design and Evaluation


Copyright 2012 SAE International
ABSTRACT
Traditionally, seat comfort analyses are performed on
physically produced seats and, in most cases, human subjects
are asked to sit for a period of time to obtain personal
subjective and objective comfort measurements. When
performed in the seat comfort research laboratory at
Tennessee State University, such procedures required close to
900 hours of testing to achieve feasible results. Besides, the
costs of the procedures were noticeably high. One of the
studies performed in the Lab employs computer driven
techniques to avoid physical prototyping for seat comfort
analyses. This technique is sought to eliminate the dependence
on the traditional techniques and reduce resources
consumptions. This study presents the crucial procedures
needed to validate and authenticate the new technique by
comparing its outcomes to the ones obtained by the
traditionally established techniques. The validation process
examines the CAD based system under diverse circumstances
that accentuate the predominant factors of seat comfort. Such
factors include sitters anthropometry, seat dimensions, seat
features, seat adjustability and cushions material properties.
The obtained results reflect high correlations between the
outcomes of the CAD based system and the traditional
methods. This study confirms that the proposed system is an
adequate tool that may replace the tedious and expensive
methods to perform seat comfort design and evaluations.

INTRODUCTION
Seat comfort analyses are usually obtained after the designer
completes a design cycle to the point where a physical product
is at hand. Such dependence yields resource exploitation and
complexity of alterations. In the first place, alterations can be
retrofitted into the seat, but in most cases they have to be
applied to a new seat production cycle. Another shortcoming
is the dependence on human subjects which is expensive and
indefinite due to the lack of consistency in the humans
subjective inputs [1]. The research team in the Center of
Excellence for Seat Comfort (CoESC) at Tennessee State
University recognizes the need to improve this area of seat
comfort analyses, and therefore, developed an innovative
technique that enhances the design process of seat comfort
with less abuse of resource.

Several researchers have been involved in the study of seat
comfort; most suggest physical prototyping and/or human
involvement. Some researchers advocate that seat comfort
evaluation can be performed through tackling the physical
factors that influence seat comfort such as Biomechanics and
Physiological factors [2], vibration evaluation [3], thermal and
humidity factors [4]. One of the most eminent approaches
used to evaluate seat comfort is the observing of contact
pressure distribution. According to literature surveys,
decreasing the contact pressure between the human and the
seat brings about more comfort [1, 3, and 5]. Contact pressure
measurement is usually done using pressure mapping systems
such as TekScan BPMS. CoESC performed a study that
employed pressure mapping to evaluate the seat comfort for
ejection seats with regards to different rail angles [6]. Part of
this study was geared towards authenticating the outcomes of
the pressure mapping system with the sitters subjective
feedbacks. The results of this study confirm that contact
pressure mapping reflects the comfort level of the tested seat.
CoESC suggests employing Computer Aided Design (CAD)
simulation rather than physical prototyping. CAD proved to
enhance the design process with better product
competitiveness, improved quality and superior information
sharing [7]. Researching the area of seat comfort shows
several studies that implemented CAD to perform seat comfort
analyses based on the fit, feel and human ergonomics.

The detection of high contact pressure regions is obtained
using Finite Element Analyses (FEA). FEA can be described
as a technique that demonstrates the reaction of an object in
CAD due to excitations; this may include force loadings,
contact pressure, thermal excitations of fluid motion [8].
There are three major stages considered in the finite element
analysis; these are the Pre-processing stage, Analysis stage,
and Post-processing stage [9]. In the Pre-processing stage, the
model is constructed with the needed parts to be analyzed then
a meshing stage is accomplished. FEA are implemented in
other researchers studies to detect the areas of high contact
pressures between seat cushion and human buttock tissue.
Page 2 of 14

Two dimensional models of a human thigh and a cushion were
used by Tang et al. considering the hyperelastic and
viscoelastic properties of the human body and the seat cushion
to simulate its mechanical behaviors. The goals of such studies
were geared toward investigating the effects of vertical
vibration on subcutaneous stress of buttocks using a finite
element modeling approach [10].

The main goal of this paper is to demonstrate the level of
accuracy of the CAD system for seat comfort analysis and its
ability to expedite the design process of new seats endorsed
with high comfort levels. This study is aimed to examine the
proposed systems reliability and repeatability with four
different factors including sitters anthropometrics, variable
seat dimensions, variable seats features and sitting period of
time.
METHODOLOGY
The initial stages of this study consisted of comprehensive
investigations in which the CoESC performed hundreds of
hours of experimentations geared toward examining the
various significant factors pertaining to seat comfort. The
experimentations concurrently explored the objective and
subjective analyses of seat comfort in order to establish a
common ground that relates the measurable factors with the
actual human feelings about the seat comfort. The objective
measurements performed include Oxygen Saturation, Blood
Pressure, Pulse Rate and Pressure Mapping. The subjective
analyses were performed using questionnaires given with a 5-
point scale type for the subject to rate the experienced
comfort. With zero being uncomfortable and five being
comfortable, the outcomes of these investigations reflected
that the pressure mapping tends to reflect high correlation with
the human feeling of comfort.
Several factors were examined and validated by the
experimentations. These factors were established as the ones
that are influential on seat comfort analysis. The factors
include:
Occupants weight distribution on top of the seat surface
Seat components such as cushion, armrests, footrest,
backrest etc.
Seat Measurements and size such as width, height, depth
etc.
Seat adjustability such as seat-pan height adjustment,
backrest angle tilt, etc.
Seat Cushion material properties such as Memory Foam,
Gel cushion, air-filled cushion, etc.
Occupants anthropometry

In order to fabricate the human models in the CAD system, the
anthropometrics of the human subjects participating in the
actual experimentations were obtained. As illustrated in Figure
1, these anthropometrics were studied and compared to the
Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) classified
measurements. The anthropometric variables considered in
this study, shown in Table 1, are selected to agree with the
ones recommended by Reed [11]. The modeling of a human
being was achieved with correct anthropometrics that reflects
the ones of the participants. These models were also simulated
with the proper quasi-linear viscoelastic material properties
that allow its interaction to external loading to behave similar
to human flesh and bones [11].

The seats used in these experiments were the base reference to
the construction of the seat models. The results obtained from
the Tekscan Pressure Mapping System can be presented in
several forms but the most considered form was the three
dimensional mapping of the pressure points to be in
accordance with the results obtained by the Finite Element
Analysis. The unified representation of the results is important
for the researcher to be able to compare and contrast the
outcomes of the proposed system to the ones of the real-life
experimentations.
As signified in the introduction, the most considered metric
used to evaluate seat comfort is by investigating the regions of
high contact pressure between the human subject and the seat
surface. Hence, the experimentations were carried out to
validate the proposed technique by examining the contact
pressure observed through traditional seat comfort evaluation
techniques and the ones of the CAD based technique. The
preliminary experiments were geared toward calibrating the
needed tools including the load measuring devices and the
pressure mapping system. Few of the experimentations were
performed to examine the distribution of loads exerted on the
different components of the seat by the occupants weight.
Other experimentations aimed to validate the modeling of the
cushion material properties and their simulated reaction when
loaded using the Finite Element Analysis software. However,
the foremost validation experimentation was performed using
Tekscan Pressure Mapping System to investigate legitimacy of
the CAD based technique.

Figure 1. Test Subjects Anthropometry Compared to the
JPATS Classes

Table 1.The Recommended Sitting Anthropometric
Measurements [11]
Page 3 of 14


The Weight Measuring Tool Selection
and Calibration
Human weight distribution on the seat surface was established
as a key factor for seat comfort analyses, therefore, the first
tool considered in achieving the adequate CAD validation is a
load measuring device that can measure the different loads
that are exerted on the seat surface by the occupant. Due to
the special settings of the experiment, the measuring tool
needed for the human-seat interface experimentation must
have low readability, memory feature, continuous reading
capability, flat surface and can operate on top of seat cushion
as well as on a hard surface.
A Taylor scale model number 7544BL was selected and
calibrated using standard weights and laboratory-utilized high
precision scales model S5000. Table 2 represents the
outcomes of this calibration process and the percentage of
error detected.
Table 2.The Outcome of the Load Measuring Device
Calibration Process
Weight
*

(lb)
Lab Scale
**

(lb)
Taylor Scale
On Hard Surface
(lb)
Error
6.235 6.235 6.20 0.56%
12.47 12.47 12.60 1.04%
18.705 18.705 18.90 1.04%
24.94 24.94 25.10 0.64%
Weight
*

(lb)
Lab Scale
**

(lb)
Taylor Scale
On Cushion
(lb)
Error
6.235 6.235 6.20 0.56%
12.47 12.470 12.50 0.24%
18.705 18.705 18.80 0.51%
24.94 24.94 24.90 0.16%
* Laboratory Standard weight
** Laboratory-utilized high precision scales model S5000.

Contact Pressure Measuring Tool
Selection and Calibration
In order to validate the outcomes of the CAD technique, a
device is needed to obtain the contact pressure between the
human body and the seat surface. Several devices were
considered for this study; however, the CoESC selected the
TekScan Performance-Based Measurement System (PBMS).
Figures 2, 3 and 4 illustrate the implementation and output
representations of the selected device. PBMS comply with the
needed features and can provide the outcomes as a map that
represents the pressure magnitude and location in relation to
the human body.


Figure 2. TekScan Performance-Based Measurement System
(PBMS) [5]


Figure 3. PBMS Digital output [5]


Figure 2. TekScan PBMS Delivers the Contact Pressure in a
Map Representation
i
Acromion
Height Sitting

ii
Buttock-
Popliteal Length
iii Chest Breadth
iv
Forearm-
Forearm Breadth
v
Hip Breadth
Sitting
vi
Interscye
Distance
vii
Popliteal Height
Sitting
viii
Waist Breadth
Omphalion
ix Head height
Page 4 of 14

Calibrating the PBMS is performed on seven (7) different
sitting scenarios where the outcomes of the PBMS are
compared to the ones obtained by the calibrated weight
measuring device. Figure 5 illustrates the outcomes obtained
by the PBMS compared to the ones of the calibrated scale.

Figure 3. Pressure Mat Calibration Graph

The Validation Process of the Computer
Aided Design Technique
Two major stages were considered to perform the validation of
the CAD technique; the first stage is to investigate the actual
distribution of the human loading on top of the seat surface.
The second stage is to examine the contact pressure obtained
from the CAD technique and compare it with the ones
obtained from the actual sitting experimentations (Figure 6).

Figure 4. CAD Validation by Conventional Methods

The loading distribution analyses are important in this study
for proper simulations using the Finite Element Analysis
technique which examines the regions of pressure points
between the seat and the occupant. Several experiments were
performed to examine the distribution of the distribution of
human weight on the seat with different postures and seat
components.
The first stage was performed with 5 different participants
aiming to investigate the load distribution on the seat surface.
In the second stage, the pressure measuring device (PBMS) is
used to detect and measure the regions of high pressure points.
The degree of repetition was tested for optimality; such testing
shows that fifty consecutive readings from the PBMS were
adequate for precision. The following steps are performed for
five different participants.
Step 1: Testing Seat Height Effects
As illustrated in Figure 7, Seat height is set to 17 inches and
gradually changed to 18 inches and 19 inches. In each trial 50
readings are taken with subject seated up on the pressure mat
with back in straight up position not touching the back support
and the arms placed on top of the thighs.

Figure 5. Testing the Seat Height Effects

Step 2: Testing Armrest Height Effects.
Illustrated in Figure 8, Seat height is set to 18 inches and the
armrest at 7 inches from the seat-pan. The armrest height is
raised to 8 inches then to 9 inches. For each change 50
readings are taken with the subject seated up on the pressure
mat with the back in straight up position not touching the back
support and the arms placed on armrest.

Figure 6. Testing the Armrest Height Effects
Page 5 of 14


Step 3: Testing Backrest Angle Effects
Seat height is set to 18 inches, the armrest height at 7 inches
and backrest angle at 90. Then the back angle is gradually
increased by 10 as showing in Figure 9. In each trial, 50
readings are taken with subject seated back on the pressure
mat with back leaned on backrest and the arms placed on
armrest.

Figure 7. Testing the Backrest Height Effects

Step 4: Testing Headrest and Footrest Effects
Seat height is set to 18 inches, the armrest height at 7 inches,
backrest angle at 100 and headrest height at 42 inches. Then
50 readings are taken while subject is seated back on the
pressure mat with back leaned on backrest, arms placed on
armrest and head rested on headrest.
The next trial test the effect of the headrest by setting the seat
height is at 18 inches, the armrest height at 7 inches and
backrest angle at 100, headrest height at 40 inches and
footrest at 4 inches height. 50 readings are taken while subject
is seated back on the pressure mat with back leaned on
backrest, arms placed on armrest, head rested on headrest and
feet rested on footrest. See Figure 10.

Figure 8. Testing the Headrest and Footrest Effects

Step 5: Testing Cushion Material Effects
The first trial of this step tests the effects of hard surface seat.
In this trial the seat height is set to 18 inches then the hard
surface is placed on seat pan and pressure mat is placed on the
top. 50 readings are taken while the subject is seated up on the
pressure mat with back in straight up position not touching the
back support and the arms placed on top of the thighs. The
second trial is performed on memory foam cushion which is
placed on seat pan and pressure mat is placed on the top. 50
readings are taken while the subject is seated with the same
posture. Subsequently, the gel-filled cushion and the air-filled
cushions were tested.

Step 6: Testing Time Effects
In this step the human subject is asked to sit up for thirty (30)
minutes. This period was compared to 10 minutes, 20 minutes,
one hour and two hours. However 30 minutes seem to provide
optimum outcomes. The seat is set on 18 inches high and the
subject sits on the pressure mat with back in straight up
position not touching the back support and the arms placed on
top of the thighs.

Results of CAD Technique Validation

The results of the sitting scenarios were collected and
conditioned in a unified form then tabulated in a manner that
makes it easier to review. The data shows nine different sets
that represent the trends between the number of seat features,
cushion softness and the contact pressure examined for five
different human subjects with diverse anthropometries. The
nine sitting scenarios were simulated with the CAD system
and the regions of contact pressure were analyzed via Finite
Element Analysis. In each simulated case the results were
represented in figures to facilitate the validation process.

The first review was performed to validate the results obtained
by the CAD for different seat features. This includes armrests,
backrest, footrest, and headrest. The second set of results was
illustrated to understand the effects of the cushion material on
seat comfort using the criteria of high contact pressure
detection. Five different cushion materials were considered
including hard wood surface, elastic mesh, memory foam, gel
cushion and air-filled cushion. In order to ensure accuracy,
calibration testing was performed to compare the reaction of
the simulated cushions in CAD to the actual loading of the
obtained cushions. This process aims to validate the material
properties provided by the manufacturer and calibrate the
system by compensating for covers and other materials used
for the support and esthetics. The cushions and human
subjects material properties calibration results are illustrated
by Figures A1-A10 in the Appendix.

Page 6 of 14


Figure 9. Cushion Material Validation in CAD


Figure 10. Cushion material Validation Results

Error Analyses
As depicted in the results, the outcomes of the validation
process behave with a trend which agrees that more seat
features seems to promote seat comfort. Furthermore, the
trend detected from the review of the cushion material effects
concurs that changing the softness of the cushion material
seems to reduce the contact pressure level. The average error
manifested in this study is, at maximum, 3.3% which is related
to a pressure that can be produced from having heavier clothes
or due to carrying items like wallets or cellular phones. In any
case, the observed error is insignificant to interfere with the
design decision making or to the evaluation of the seat
comfort level. A case study is presented to demonstrate the
outcomes of the CAD system for seat comfort design and
evaluation. This study involves a new seat design for the
North Americas population and the CAD system is used to
examine the effects of the parameters suggested to satisfy the
comfort level of the given seat. Figure A11 in the Appendix
shows the analyses results of the CAD system with different
seat height, armrest height, backrest angle, headrest and
footrest existence, and different cushion materials.

CONCLUSION

Several traditional seat comfort evaluation experiments were
performed to test the validity of the system proposed by the
Center of Excellence for Seat Comfort. Human subjects with
diverse anthropometry were employed to sit with varying
scenarios. The testing was properly simulated and analyzed
using the CAD technique. Validation of the system was
obtained by comparing its outcomes to the ones of the actual
sitting. The results obtained from the CAD system
demonstrates the effects of the seat features and seat cushion
softness on seat comfort as established from literatures. When
comparing the outcomes of the CAD system to the traditional
technique, a great deal of similarity was observed, not only by
the magnitude of the contact pressure, but also by the
distribution of the pressure regions between the human and the
seat surface. An average error of 3.3% was observed which
can be compared to the pressure difference produced by the
occupants clothes and pocket contents. In other words, the
observed error was insignificant and does not interfere with
goals of the study. However, with the resilience of the CAD
system this error can always be reduced. The results of this
study agree strongly with literature survey while more
comprehensive analyses were carried out with this technique.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the Boeing Corporation under
contract TBC-TSU-GTA-1. We wish to acknowledge Edward
Winkler and Jarrett Datcher of The Boeing Company for their
support and coordination of this effort.

REFERENCES

1. De Looze, M. P., Kuijt_Evers, L. F. M. and Dieen, J. V.,
Sitting Comfort and Discomfort and the Relationship
with Objective Measures Ergonomics, Vol. 46, No. 10,
2003, pp. 985-997, 2003
2. Reed, M. P., Saito, M., Kakishima, Y., Lee, N. S., and
Schneider, L. W. An investigation of driver discomfort
and related seat design factors in extended-duration
driving. SAE Technical Paper 910117. Warrendale, PA:
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. 1991
3. Nilsson, L, and Johansson A. Evaluation of Discomfort
Using Real-time Measurements of Whole Body Vibration
and Seat Pressure Distribution While Driving Trucks
Page 7 of 14

Master of Science Thesis, Lule University of
Technology, Scandinavia. 2006
4. Ormu K., and Mufti M., Main Ambient Factors
Influencing Passenger Vehicle Comfort, Proceedings of
2nd International Ergonomics Stubike Toplice, Zagreb,
Croatia October 2004.
5. Milivojevich, A., Blair R., Pageau J. -G, and Russ A.,
Investigating Psychometric and Body Pressure
Distribution Responses to Automotive Seating Comfort,
SAE Technical Paper No. 2000-01-0626, 2000.
6. Ojetola, O., Onyebueke, L., Winkler, E., Ejection Seat
Cushions Static Evaluation for Three Different rail
angles, SAE International, 2011.
7. Mamat, R., Wahab, D. A., Abdullah, S., The Integration
of CAD and Life Cycle Requirements in Automotive Seat
Design European Journal of Scientific Research ISSN
1450-216X Vol.31 No.1, pp. 148-156, 2009.
8. Pileicikiene G., Surna A., Barauskas, R., Surna R.,
Basevicius, A., Finite element analysis of stresses in the
maxillary and mandibular dental arches and TMJ articular
discs during clenching into maximum intercuspation,
anterior and unilateral posterior occlusion.
Stomatologija, Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal,
9:121-128, 2007.
9. Roylance, D., Finite Element Analysis Department of
Materials Science and Engineering Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 02139. February
28, 2001.
10. Tang C, Y., Tsui, C.P, Method of Modeling Muscular
Tissue with Active Finite Elements, U. S. Patent, the
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon (HK), 2006
11. Reed, M. P., Schneider, L. W., and Ricci, L. L.,
Survey of Auto Seat Design Recommendations for
Improved Comfort, Technical Report No. UMRTI-
94-6, University of Michigan. 1994
Page 8 of 14

APPENDIX

Results obtained for Test Subject 1

Table A1. Test Subject 1 Anthropometric Data
label Gender Age
TS1 Female 24
trial 1 trial 2 trial 3 Average
Gross Weight (lb) 113.0 113.0 113.0 113.0
Acromion Height Sitting (in) 18.6 18.5 18.5 18.53
Buttock-Popliteal Length (in) 21.25 21.5 21.5 21.42
Chest Breadth (in) 18 18.75 18.75 18.5
Forearm-Forearm Breadth (in) 19 18.75 18.75 18.83
Hip Breadth Sitting (in) 19.25 19.25 19.25 19.25
Interscye Distance (in) 16.5 16.5 116.5 49.83
Popliteal Height Sitting (in) 17.5 16.5 16.5 16.83
Waist Breadth Omphalion (in) 18.5 19 19 18.83


Table A2. Test Subject 1 Validation Results with Seat Features
S1 Female Contact pressure (PSI)


24 YO, 113 lbs BPMS CAD ERROR
Seat Pan Height
17 in 3.2611 3.3215 0.0604
18 in 3.2229 3.2567 0.0338
19 in 3.4194 3.4335 0.0141
Armrests Height
7 in 2.2998 2.3487 0.0489
8 in 2.7749 2.9011 0.1262
9 in 2.8636 2.9876 0.124
Back Angle
90 1.6395 1.7002 0.0607
100 1.4464 1.4723 0.0259
110 1.1859 1.2009 0.015
Headrest exists 1.0921 1.1232 0.0311
Footrest exists 0.9882 1.0324 0.0442


Figure A1. Test Subject 1 Seat Features Validation Graph

Page 9 of 14




Table A3. Test Subject 1 Validation Results with Seat Cushion Material

Contact Pressure (PSI)


BPMS CAD ERROR
Cushion Material
Hard surface 4.5817 4.671 0.0893
Elastic mesh 3.2611 3.3215 0.0604
Memory Foam 1.4958 1.5664 0.0706
Gel-filled 1.0129 1.1098 0.0969
Air-filled 0.968 0.9721 0.0041


Figure A2. Test Subject 1Cushion Material Validation Graph


Page 10 of 14

Results obtained for test subject number 2


Figure 11. Test Subject 2 Seat Feature Validation Graph


Figure A4. Test Subject 2 Materials Effects Validation Graph



Page 11 of 14


Results obtained for test subject number 3


Figure A6. Test Subject 3 Seat Feature Validation Graph


Figure A5. Test Subject 3 Cushion Material Effects Validation Graph


Page 12 of 14


Results obtained for test subject number 4


Figure A7. Test Subject 4 Seat Feature Validation Graph



Figure A8. Test Subject 4 Cushion Material Effects Validation Graph



Page 13 of 14

Results obtained for test subject number 5


Figure A9. Test Subject 5 Seat Feature Validation Graph


Figure A10. Test Subject 5 Cushion Material Effects Validation Graph


Page 14 of 14

Case Study for a New Seat Design for the North America Population


Figure A11. Case Study Outcomes for New Seat Design Using CAD System