Method for determining a safe handhold position and a seat human torso angle

Abstract

The present application relates to a kind of method for determining safety handle position and seat human torso angle.The method includes: step S1, in the optional interval of first parameter and second parameter, multiple values are selected;First parameter is the distance of safety handle and the SgRP point of corresponding seat in horizontal direction, and second parameter is the human torso angle of seat corresponding to safety handle;Step S2, according to the multiple values of first parameter and second parameter selected, generate multiple sets of data combinations, input preset ergonomics simulation software, obtain the ergonomics simulation evaluation result of multiple preset height human body model under each set of data combination by simulation analysis;Step S4, in the multiple sets of ergonomics simulation evaluation result obtained, determine one or more sets of data combinations meeting the requirements;The data combination meeting the requirements refers to the ergonomics simulation evaluation result obtained under the data combination to multiple preset height human body model is all higher than set value.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of vehicle design, primarily to the design of vehicle safety handles and seats, and specifically to a method for determining the position of safety handles and the angle of the human torso in a seat. Background Technology

[0002] For passenger vehicles, passenger safety and comfort are fundamental and crucial requirements. Safety handles and seats are essential components within the vehicle designed to ensure passenger safety and comfort. With advancements in automotive technology, the demands on vehicle design are increasing, requiring not only superior performance, reliability, and safety, but also improved ergonomics. Existing safety handles and seats have not adequately considered ergonomics in their design, resulting in low user comfort or high fatigue levels during continuous use. Summary of the Invention

[0003] The purpose of this invention is to provide a method for determining the position of a safety handle and the angle of the human torso in a seat, so as to solve the problems of low comfort or high fatigue during use of safety handles and vehicle seats in the prior art.

[0004] To achieve the above objectives, the technical solution adopted by the present invention is as follows:

[0005] A method for determining the position of a safety handle and the torso angle of a seat, the method comprising:

[0006] Step S1: Select multiple values ​​within the selectable range of the first parameter and the second parameter; the first parameter is the horizontal distance between the safety handle and the corresponding SgRP point of the seat, and the second parameter is the human torso angle of the seat corresponding to the safety handle.

[0007] Step S2: Generate multiple sets of data combinations based on the selected first and second parameters, input them into the preset human-computer engineering simulation software, and obtain the human-computer engineering simulation evaluation results of multiple preset height human body models under each set of data combinations through simulation analysis.

[0008] Step S4: Among the multiple sets of human-computer interaction simulation evaluation results obtained, determine one or more sets of data combinations that meet the requirements; the data combination that meets the requirements means that the human-computer interaction simulation evaluation results obtained for multiple human models of preset heights under the data combination are all higher than the set value.

[0009] According to the above technical solution, multiple values ​​within the selectable range of the first and second parameters are input into ergonomic simulation software for ergonomic simulation to obtain ergonomic simulation evaluation results. From the obtained ergonomic simulation evaluation results, data combinations that are friendly to multiple preset height human body models are selected. Based on this, a real physical model can be manufactured for real people to experience, and subjective ergonomic evaluation results are provided for further screening. Based on the above ergonomic simulation evaluation results and subjective ergonomic evaluation results, values ​​of the first and second parameters that have better ergonomic performance for people of various preset heights can be selected. Vehicles manufactured according to these values ​​will have better ergonomic performance in their safety handles and seats.

[0010] Furthermore, the method also includes the following steps performed between step S2 and step S4:

[0011] Step S3: Based on the obtained multiple sets of human-computer simulation evaluation results, establish a functional relationship between the first parameter, the second parameter, and the human-computer simulation evaluation results; based on this functional relationship, obtain the value range and data combination of the first parameter and the second parameter for multiple human models with preset heights when the human-computer simulation evaluation results are higher than the set values.

[0012] Based on the above technical solution, more data combinations of the first and second parameters with human-computer interaction simulation evaluation results higher than the set values ​​can be calculated or deduced, which also helps to screen data combinations of the first and second parameters with higher human-computer interaction simulation evaluation results.

[0013] Furthermore, the method also includes the following steps performed after step S4:

[0014] Step S5: Create one or more models of seats and safety handles, corresponding to one or more sets of data selected in step S4. Arrange for people of different heights to actually experience the seats and safety handles, and obtain the ergonomic subjective evaluation results for each set of seat and safety handle models. The ergonomic subjective evaluation result for each set of seat and safety handle models is either pass or fail.

[0015] The data combination corresponding to the seat and safety handle model that passes the test is an optional design, and the data combination corresponding to the seat and safety handle model that fails the test is discarded; if there is no data combination that passes the test, then step S4 is executed again.

[0016] According to the above technical solution, by manufacturing a real physical model, real people can experience and evaluate it to obtain subjective evaluation results of human factors engineering. Based on whether the subjective evaluation results of human factors engineering are confirmed by the previously obtained human factors engineering simulation evaluation results, a more realistic combination of data for the first and second parameters with good human factors engineering performance can be selected.

[0017] Furthermore, in step S1, the interval between the multiple values ​​selected from the first parameter selectable range is a fixed value, and the interval between the multiple values ​​selected from the second parameter selectable range is 1°.

[0018] According to the above technical solution, the values ​​of the first parameter and the second parameter are selected at fixed intervals. On the one hand, this method is simple and convenient, and on the other hand, it is easier to obtain the functional relationship between the first parameter, the second parameter and the human-computer engineering simulation evaluation results in step S3.

[0019] Furthermore, the preset human-machine engineering simulation software is Ramsis software.

[0020] According to the above technical solution, Ramsis software is a commonly used human factors engineering simulation software. It is easy to use and widely applied, and there are many staff members who can use and operate it.

[0021] Furthermore, in step S4, the obtained multiple sets of human-machine engineering simulation evaluation results are input into the preset simulation analysis software to determine one or more sets of data combinations that meet the requirements.

[0022] Based on the above technical solution, determining the required data combination through simulation analysis software is more convenient, faster, and more efficient.

[0023] Furthermore, in step S3, the obtained multiple sets of human-computer interaction simulation evaluation results are input into the preset simulation analysis software, and the functional relationship between the first parameter, the second parameter and the human-computer interaction simulation evaluation results is established based on the preset simulation analysis software.

[0024] Based on the above technical solution, determining the required data combination through simulation analysis software is more convenient, faster, and more efficient.

[0025] Furthermore, the preset simulation analysis software is Minitab software.

[0026] According to the above technical solution, Minitab software is a commonly used simulation analysis software. It is easy to use and widely used, and there are many staff members who can use and operate it.

[0027] Furthermore, the ergonomic simulation evaluation results include comfort evaluation results and / or fatigue evaluation results.

[0028] According to the above technical solution, when conditions permit, both comfort and fatigue can be simulated and evaluated simultaneously. When conditions do not permit, only one dimension, comfort or fatigue, can be simulated and evaluated, thus meeting the needs of various situations.

[0029] Furthermore, in step S5, the subjective ergonomic evaluation results given by people of different heights are assigned corresponding weights; the weight of the subjective ergonomic evaluation results given by people of each height is positively correlated with the proportion of people of that height.

[0030] Based on the above technical solution, by assigning weights according to the proportion of people of different heights, it is possible to better filter out data combinations that have better ergonomic performance for the majority of people.

[0031] Furthermore, the first parameter is the distance between the midpoint of the safety handle and the corresponding SgRP point of the seat in the horizontal plane and in the front-back direction.

[0032] According to the above technical solution, using the midpoint of the safety handle as a boundary point of the first parameter is easy to determine and mark, and can be applied to safety handles of different sizes and specifications.

[0033] Furthermore, at most one of the first parameter and the second parameter can have a single fixed value within its selectable range.

[0034] According to the above technical solution, and based on the needs of different vehicle design and development, when the first parameter is a fixed value, the value of the second parameter with better ergonomics efficiency can be selected separately; when the second parameter is a fixed value, the value of the second parameter with better ergonomics efficiency can also be selected separately; when neither the first nor the second parameter is a fixed value, the data combination of the first and second parameters with better ergonomics efficiency can be selected as needed.

[0035] The beneficial effects of this invention are:

[0036] Multiple values ​​from the selectable range of the first and second parameters are input into ergonomic simulation software for ergonomic simulation, yielding ergonomic simulation evaluation results. From these results, data combinations that are compatible with multiple preset height human models are selected. Furthermore, a real physical model can be created for real-person testing, providing subjective ergonomic evaluation results for further selection. Based on the ergonomic simulation and subjective evaluation results, values ​​for the first and second parameters that offer better ergonomic performance for people of various preset heights can be selected. Vehicles manufactured using these values ​​will exhibit better ergonomic performance in their safety handles and seats. Attached Figure Description

[0037] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of the process of the present invention;

[0038] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram showing the relative positions of the seat and the safety handle in this invention;

[0039] Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the human body model in this invention, sitting in a seat and holding a safety handle.

[0040] Among them, 1-vehicle floor; 2-seat; 3-human mannequin; 4-vehicle roof; 5-safety handle. Detailed Implementation

[0041] The embodiments of the present invention will be described below with reference to the accompanying drawings and preferred embodiments. Those skilled in the art can easily understand other advantages and effects of the present invention from the content disclosed in this specification. The present invention can also be implemented or applied through other different specific embodiments, and various details in this specification can also be modified or changed based on different viewpoints and applications without departing from the spirit of the present invention. It should be understood that the preferred embodiments are only for illustrating the present invention and not for limiting the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0042] It should be noted that the illustrations provided in the following embodiments are only schematic representations of the basic concept of the present invention. Therefore, the drawings only show the components related to the present invention and are not drawn according to the actual number, shape and size of the components in the actual implementation. In the actual implementation, the form, quantity and proportion of each component can be arbitrarily changed, and the layout of the components may also be more complex.

[0043] In one embodiment of the method for determining the position of the safety handle and the torso angle of the seat according to the present invention, taking a small passenger vehicle (with two or three rows of seats) as an example, the position of the safety handle and the torso angle of the seat to be determined can specifically be the position of the safety handle and the torso angle of the seat corresponding to any one of the front seats, rear seats, or third-row seats of the vehicle. In other types of vehicles, it can also be the position of the safety handle and the torso angle of the seat corresponding to any other seat. The following description mainly uses a small passenger vehicle as an example.

[0044] Specifically, the method for determining the position of the safety handle and the angle of the human torso in the seat includes the following steps S1 to S5, such as... Figure 1 As shown.

[0045] Step S1: Select multiple values ​​within the selectable range of the first and second parameters; for example... Figure 2 and Figure 3As shown, the first parameter is the horizontal distance between the safety handle 5 and the corresponding SgRP point (seat reference point) of the seat 2. Figure 2 (represented by L in the text), the second parameter is the human torso angle of the seat 2 corresponding to the safety handle 5 (in the context of the angle between L and L). Figure 2 (represented by A40 in Chinese).

[0046] like Figure 2 and Figure 3 As shown, in the vehicle, seat 2 is installed on vehicle floor 1, and safety handle 5 is installed on vehicle roof 4; Figure 3 The image shows a mannequin 3 sitting in seat 2 with its hands holding safety handle 5.

[0047] In step S1, the first parameter can specifically be the distance between the midpoint of the safety handle and the corresponding SgRP point of the seat in the horizontal plane and in the front-back direction. Of course, in addition to this, the distance between other positions of the safety handle and the corresponding SgRP point of the seat can also be used as the first parameter, and this distance is not limited to the distance in the front-back direction, but can also be the actual distance in the horizontal direction (diagonal distance).

[0048] In the vehicle design and development process, during step S1, the overall layout and design orientation of the vehicle's interior space are already determined. Under these circumstances, based on considerations and requirements regarding the overall layout and design orientation of the vehicle's interior space, the position of the SgRP point for each seat is predetermined. Simultaneously, the position of the seat's torso angle and the corresponding safety handle have a preliminary selectable range. The final value of the seat's torso angle and the final position of the corresponding safety handle for each seat must be selected and determined within this range, and cannot exceed it. Therefore, for step S1, the selectable range of the first and second parameters is predetermined.

[0049] In step S1, the selectable intervals of the first and second parameters are a continuous range, a discrete set of multiple point values, or a combination of both. In short, the selectable intervals of the first and second parameters include multiple different selectable values. When the selectable intervals of the first and second parameters comprise a continuous range, the interval between the multiple values ​​selected from the selectable interval of the first parameter can be a fixed value, for example, a difference of 1 cm between any two adjacent values; the interval between the multiple values ​​selected from the selectable interval of the second parameter can also be a fixed value, for example, a difference of 1° between any two adjacent values.

[0050] Step S2: Generate multiple sets of data combinations based on the selected values ​​of the first and second parameters, input them into the preset human-machine engineering simulation software, and obtain the human-machine engineering simulation evaluation results of multiple preset height human body models under each set of data combinations through simulation analysis.

[0051] Specifically, the preset ergonomic simulation software can be Ramsis software or other ergonomic simulation software. In step S2, Ramsis software or other ergonomic simulation software is used to perform ergonomic analysis on the comfort and fatigue of passengers sitting in the seat and holding the handrails. Accordingly, the obtained ergonomic simulation evaluation results include comfort evaluation results and fatigue evaluation results. Of course, in step S2, Ramsis software or other ergonomic simulation software can also be used to perform ergonomic analysis only on the comfort of passengers sitting in the seat and holding the handrails, or only on the fatigue. Accordingly, the obtained ergonomic simulation evaluation results are only comfort evaluation results or only fatigue evaluation results.

[0052] The following example describes and explains step S2.

[0053] In step S2, for example, if the values ​​of the first parameter include a1, a2, a3 (a1 to a3 increasing), and the values ​​of the second parameter include b1, b2, b3 (b1 to b3 increasing), then, for example, a maximum of 9 sets of data combinations can be established based on the values ​​of the first and second parameters, as follows:

[0054] 1: a1, b1

[0055] 2: a1, b2

[0056] 3: a1, b3

[0057] 4: a2, b1

[0058] 5: a2, b2

[0059] 6: a2, b3

[0060] 7: a3, b1

[0061] 8: a3, b2

[0062] 9: a3, b3

[0063] In practice, all nine sets of data combinations mentioned above can be created, or only a portion of the data combinations can be created selectively.

[0064] Taking the example above, which establishes 9 sets of data combinations, inputting these 9 sets of data combinations into the human factors engineering simulation software essentially simulates the establishment of 9 sets of vehicles of different specifications within the human factors engineering simulation software. The first and second parameters of these 9 sets of vehicles of different specifications are the values ​​given in each set of data combinations.

[0065] Following this, within the ergonomic simulation software, human body models with different preset heights or other variations are configured on corresponding seats in the nine different vehicle sizes (corresponding to the nine data combinations mentioned above). Through simulation analysis, the ergonomic simulation evaluation results of the human body models with different preset heights in each vehicle size are obtained. For example, three different human body models can be selected: 155cm (female), 171cm (male), and 188cm (male). These three different human body models are configured in the nine different vehicle sizes, and the riding experience in each vehicle is simulated. Finally, the comfort and fatigue evaluation results of the three heights of the human body models in the nine different vehicle sizes are obtained. For example, a 155cm (female) human model will have better comfort and fatigue evaluation results in the vehicle corresponding to the first data combination (a1, b1), while a 188cm (male) human model will have worse comfort and fatigue evaluation results in the same vehicle. Conversely, for example, a 155cm (female) human model will have worse comfort and fatigue evaluation results in the vehicle corresponding to the ninth data combination (a3, b3), while a 188cm (male) human model will have better comfort and fatigue evaluation results in the same vehicle.

[0066] Step S3: Based on the obtained multiple sets of human-computer simulation evaluation results, establish a functional relationship between the first parameter, the second parameter, and the human-computer simulation evaluation results; based on this functional relationship, obtain the value range and data combination of the first parameter and the second parameter for multiple human models with preset heights when the human-computer simulation evaluation results are higher than the set values.

[0067] Specifically, when obtaining the aforementioned functional relationship, multiple sets of human-computer interaction simulation evaluation results can be input into a preset simulation analysis software. The software is then used to establish the functional relationship between the first parameter, the second parameter, and the human-computer interaction simulation evaluation results. This preset simulation analysis software can be Minitab or other simulation analysis software.

[0068] In the previous steps, the selected values ​​of the first and second parameters were discrete point values. The ergonomic simulation software simulated a finite number of data combinations based on these discrete point values. However, it did not simulate the riding experience of multiple preset height human models under these data combinations for other unselected values ​​within the selectable range of the first and second parameters, or the data combinations that could be established based on these values. In reality, among these possible data combinations, one or more preset height human models may have a better riding experience under one particular data combination, even better than the ergonomic simulation evaluation results for all nine groups of vehicles with different specifications mentioned above.

[0069] In step S3, after obtaining the functional relationship between the first parameter, the second parameter, and the human factors simulation evaluation result, the range of data combinations that may have a good human factors simulation evaluation result for each preset height human body model can be calculated or deduced (the specific range is determined by the set value). The range of these data combinations includes data combinations that have not been simulated in the human factors simulation software (at least one of the first parameter and the second parameter is a value that has not been selected within its selectable range).

[0070] For example, combining the above examples, the selectable range of the first parameter also includes a4, and the selectable range of the second parameter also includes b4, where a2 < a4 < a3, and b2 < b4 < b3. Based on the functional relationship obtained in step S3, it is calculated or deduced that under the data combination of a4 and b4, the ergonomic simulation evaluation result of the preset 171cm (male) human body model will be better, exceeding the determined set value; simultaneously, under the data combination of a3 and b4, the ergonomic simulation evaluation result of the preset 171cm (male) human body model will be the best among all the data combinations that can be established from the selectable values ​​of the first and second parameters. Thus, the data combinations established by a4 and b4 and a3 and b4 can be included in the final selectable range of the first and second parameters during the vehicle design and development process.

[0071] The functional relationship between the first parameter, the second parameter, and the human-machine engineering simulation evaluation results obtained in step S3 can also be stored and used in other vehicle design and development.

[0072] Step S4: Among the multiple sets of human-computer interaction simulation evaluation results obtained, determine one or more sets of data combinations that meet the requirements; the data combination that meets the requirements means that the human-computer interaction simulation evaluation results obtained for multiple human models of preset heights under the data combination are all higher than the set value.

[0073] As described in the preceding steps, the ergonomic simulation evaluation results for human models of different preset heights may differ for each data combination. This will lead to the following two situations:

[0074] Firstly, under a certain data combination, the human-computer interaction simulation evaluation results of one or more human body models with preset heights are very good, while the human-computer interaction simulation evaluation results of another one or more human body models with preset heights under the same data combination are very poor and unacceptable.

[0075] Secondly, under a certain data combination, the ergonomic simulation evaluation results of the human body models of each preset height did not show any extremely poor or unacceptable situations. Although the ergonomic simulation evaluation results of the human body models of each preset height varied in quality, they were all above the passing grade and higher than the set value.

[0076] In step S4, data combinations belonging to the first category are excluded, while those belonging to the second category are retained. This is because the first category, for some consumers of different body types, results in very poor ergonomic simulation evaluations, implying a very poor riding experience. Vehicles designed and developed based on data combinations belonging to the second category, selected according to the aforementioned criteria, can guarantee a basic level of comfort and fatigue reduction for consumers of different body types, avoiding situations where the comfort or fatigue is so poor that it is unacceptable to consumers. Furthermore, for some consumers of different body types, the comfort and fatigue reduction experience will be even better.

[0077] Specifically, in step S4, when determining the data combinations that meet the requirements, the obtained multiple sets of human-machine engineering simulation evaluation results can be input into a preset simulation analysis software to determine one or more sets of data combinations that meet the requirements. This preset simulation analysis software can be Minitab or other simulation analysis software. Of course, in actual implementation, the data combinations required by the load requirements can also be determined manually.

[0078] Preferably, the preset simulation analysis software in step S4 is the same as the preset simulation analysis software in step S3. Since the multiple sets of human-machine interface simulation evaluation results obtained in step S3 have already been input into Minitab software or other simulation analysis software, there is no need to repeat the input in step S4. In step S4, the required data combination can be determined directly based on the multiple sets of human-machine interface simulation evaluation results already input in step S3, and the new human-machine interface simulation evaluation results selected in step S3.

[0079] Specifically, in step S4, all data combinations meeting the load requirements can be filtered out. However, if there are many data combinations that meet the requirements, only some of them can be filtered out.

[0080] Step S5: Create one or more models of the seats and safety handles, corresponding to one or more data combinations selected in Step S4. Arrange for people of different heights to actually experience the seats and safety handles, and obtain subjective ergonomic evaluation results for each set of seat and safety handle models. The subjective ergonomic evaluation result for each set of seat and safety handle models is either "pass" or "fail". The data combination corresponding to the seat and safety handle model with a "pass" result is an optional design, and the data combination corresponding to the seat and safety handle model with a "fail" result is discarded; if there is no data combination with a "pass" result, then repeat Step S4.

[0081] In step S5, at least real physical models of the seat and safety handles are used, with people of different heights sitting in the seat and using the safety handles, to provide real evaluation results on the riding experience. These results are called subjective ergonomic evaluation results, which are distinct from the ergonomic simulation evaluation results obtained from ergonomic simulation software. The subjective ergonomic evaluation results obtained in step S5 are mainly used to confirm the data combinations selected in step S4. Specifically, if the subjective ergonomic evaluation result obtained in step S5 is satisfactory, the data combinations selected in step S4 are confirmed, and the values ​​of the first and second parameters in the confirmed data combinations are used as the final adopted values. Seats and safety handles that meet this data combination can be selected as the final design. If the subjective ergonomic evaluation result obtained in step S5 is unsatisfactory, the data combinations selected in step S4 are not confirmed, and step S4 needs to be repeated to select new data combinations.

[0082] In step S5, people of different heights participate in the subjective evaluation of the physical models of the seat and safety handles. For the same physical model, the subjective evaluations given by people of different heights and body types may differ. In practice, corresponding weights can be assigned to the ergonomic subjective evaluation results given by people of different heights; the weight of the ergonomic subjective evaluation result given by each height is, for example, positively correlated with the proportion of people of that height; for example, the weight assigned to each height can refer to the percentile of the SAE human body model. In this way, the subjective evaluation results given by people of various different heights are combined to determine whether the ergonomic subjective evaluation result in step S5 is pass or fail.

[0083] In another embodiment of the method for determining the position of the safety handle and the torso angle of the seat according to the present invention, one of the first parameter and the second parameter may be selected as a single fixed value.

[0084] Understandably, both the first and second parameters independently affect the comfort and fatigue experience of the human body while riding. With the second parameter fixed, selecting a suitable value within the selectable range of the first parameter as the final value of the first parameter can achieve a relatively better comfort and fatigue experience. Similarly, with the first parameter fixed, selecting a suitable value within the selectable range of the second parameter as the final value of the second parameter can also achieve a relatively greater comfort and fatigue experience. Compared to existing technologies, both approaches achieve better ergonomic performance.

[0085] In another embodiment of the method for determining the position of the safety handle and the torso angle of the seat according to the present invention, step S3, or step S5, or both steps S3 and S5 may be omitted. If step S3 is omitted, in step S4, a suitable data combination is determined based on the limited number of ergonomic simulation evaluation results obtained in step S2; if there is no suitable data combination or the number of suitable data combinations is small, step S1 can be repeated. If step S5 is omitted, the values ​​of the first and second parameters in the suitable data combination selected in step S4 are used directly as the final values ​​of the first and second parameters.

[0086] In summary, the method for determining the human torso angle of safety handles and seats according to the above embodiments of the present invention involves selecting multiple values ​​within the selectable range of the first and second parameters and inputting them into ergonomic simulation software for ergonomic simulation to obtain ergonomic simulation evaluation results. From the obtained ergonomic simulation evaluation results, a data combination that is friendly to multiple preset height human models is selected. Based on this, a real physical model can be manufactured for real people to experience, and a subjective ergonomic evaluation result can be given for further screening. According to the above ergonomic simulation evaluation results and subjective ergonomic evaluation results, values ​​of the first and second parameters that have better ergonomic performance for people of various preset heights can be selected. Vehicles manufactured according to these values ​​will have safety handles and seats with better ergonomic performance.

[0087] The above embodiments are merely preferred embodiments provided to fully illustrate the present invention, and the scope of protection of the present invention is not limited thereto. Equivalent substitutions or modifications made by those skilled in the art based on the present invention are all within the scope of protection of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for determining the position of a safety handle and the angle of the human torso in a seat, characterized in that, The method includes: Step S1: Select multiple values ​​within the selectable range of the first parameter and the second parameter; the first parameter is the horizontal distance between the safety handle and the corresponding SgRP point of the seat, and the second parameter is the human torso angle of the seat corresponding to the safety handle. Step S2: Generate multiple sets of data combinations based on the selected first and second parameters, input them into the preset human-computer engineering simulation software, and obtain the human-computer engineering simulation evaluation results of multiple preset height human body models under each set of data combinations through simulation analysis. Step S4: Among the multiple sets of human-computer simulation evaluation results obtained, determine one or more sets of data combinations that meet the requirements; the data combination that meets the requirements means that the human-computer simulation evaluation results obtained for multiple human models of preset heights under the data combination are all higher than the set value. Step S5: Create one or more models of seats and safety handles, corresponding to one or more sets of data combinations selected in Step S4. Arrange for people of different heights to actually experience the seats and safety handles, and obtain ergonomic subjective evaluation results for each set of seat and safety handle models. Assign corresponding weights to the ergonomic subjective evaluation results given by people of different heights. The weight of the ergonomic subjective evaluation results given by people of each height is positively correlated with the proportion of people of that height. The ergonomic subjective evaluation result of each set of seat and safety handle models is either pass or fail. The data combination corresponding to the seat and safety handle models with a pass result is an optional design, and the data combination corresponding to the seat and safety handle models with a fail result is discarded. If there is no data combination with a pass result, then repeat Step S4.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The method also includes the following steps performed between step S2 and step S4: Step S3: Based on the obtained multiple sets of human-computer simulation evaluation results, establish a functional relationship between the first parameter, the second parameter, and the human-computer simulation evaluation results; based on this functional relationship, obtain the value range and data combination of the first parameter and the second parameter for multiple human models with preset heights when the human-computer simulation evaluation results are higher than the set values.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, In step S1, the interval between multiple values ​​selected from the first parameter selectable range is a fixed value, and the interval between multiple values ​​selected from the second parameter selectable range is 1°.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The preset human-machine engineering simulation software is Ramsis software.

5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, In step S4, the obtained multiple sets of human-machine engineering simulation evaluation results are input into the preset simulation analysis software to determine one or more sets of data combinations that meet the requirements.

6. The method according to claim 2, characterized in that, In step S3, the obtained multiple sets of human-computer interaction simulation evaluation results are input into the preset simulation analysis software, and the functional relationship between the first parameter, the second parameter and the human-computer interaction simulation evaluation results is established based on the preset simulation analysis software.

7. The method according to claim 5 or 6, characterized in that, The preset simulation analysis software is Minitab software.

8. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The ergonomic simulation evaluation results include comfort evaluation results and / or fatigue evaluation results.

9. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The first parameter is the distance between the midpoint of the safety handle and the corresponding SgRP point of the seat in the horizontal plane and in the front-back direction.

10. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, At most one of the first parameter and the second parameter can have a single fixed value within its selectable range.

Images