Method and system for checking and evaluating operability of automobile function part

Abstract

The invention discloses an automobile function part operability checking and evaluating method and system, and the method comprises the steps: taking a standard reference point of a driver seat as a benchmark, combining a human body size and a key angle parameter, and dynamically calculating the shoulder point coordinates of a driver; based on an operation mode, an arm state and a shoulder and back leaning condition, combining and defining a multi-dimensional checking working condition, and determining a theoretical operation distance from a central point of a functional part to a shoulder point of a driver under each working condition through a progressive calculation rule; associating and classifying the theoretical operation distances into evaluation standard tables with different safety levels according to the numerical values of the theoretical operation distances and the influence of the theoretical operation distances on safety and comfort; and outputting a checking evaluation result by comparing the actual distance of the functional part with the corresponding range in the standard table. The method overcomes the limitation of a traditional static enveloping method, achieves dynamic, refined and safety-oriented quantitative evaluation of operability, can effectively recognize and guide and optimize the layout problem in the early stage of design, improves the design quality and efficiency, and reduces the setting and transformation risk in the later stage of development.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of human factors engineering design, specifically to a method and system for verifying and evaluating the operability of automotive functional components. Background Technology

[0002] In the process of automotive ergonomic design and overall layout development, the ease, comfort, and safety of the driver's operation of various in-vehicle functional components (such as combination switches, multimedia control panels, air conditioning buttons, etc.) are key indicators for evaluating the quality of vehicle interior design. A good layout design should ensure that the driver can easily, accurately, and safely access and operate the relevant functional components in a normal driving posture, avoiding driving distraction or postural discomfort caused by inconvenient operation.

[0003] Currently, the industry commonly uses a hand-reaching and operational envelope method based on a human model as the main technical means for verifying and evaluating the operability of functional components. The basic principle of this method is: based on the driver's seating reference point (R point or SgRP point), a human upper limb model is established using standard human body size data to simulate the driver's static sitting posture in the seat, and the limit area that the driver's palm can reach in three-dimensional space is defined. Typically, this envelope area is further subdivided according to different operational intentions (such as full-palm grasping, three-finger pinching, single-finger pressing), forming envelope surfaces representing different operational methods.

[0004] Although this method provides basic spatial constraints for the initial arrangement of functional components, its inherent technical limitations are becoming increasingly apparent in practical applications and engineering practice, mainly in the following aspects: (1) Static and singular envelope considerations: Traditional hand reach and operation envelope are essentially based on an idealized static maximum extension model. It mainly describes the physical limit boundary that the driver's arm can reach in a fixed sitting position, without fully considering the real and dynamic diverse operation scenarios during driving. For example, the driver's operational caution, body posture stability and operational intentions vary significantly in different states such as high-speed driving, low-speed maneuvering, and stationary waiting, but existing methods cannot distinguish and evaluate these scenarios in detail.

[0005] (2) Ignoring the continuous spectrum and habits of operating postures: In actual driving, the driver's operation is not always to touch the limit boundary with the arm fully extended. On the contrary, more operations are completed in various effortless and comfortable postures such as the elbow is naturally bent, the body is slightly leaning forward, or the backrest is kept close. The "maximum envelope" generated by the existing method fails to effectively cover these more common and more natural human operating ranges. As a result, when designing the layout based on it, functional components may be placed in areas that are "accessible but awkward to operate" rather than "easy and comfortable".

[0006] (3) Lack of direct correlation with operational safety: This method focuses on the physical level of "accessibility" without quantitatively linking the operating distance, the degree of body posture deviation, and driving safety risks. For example, a functional component that requires the driver's shoulders to be significantly away from the backrest to operate, although still within the maximum envelope, will lead to an increase in the time the driver's line of sight is deflected and an unstable body posture during operation, potentially increasing driving safety risks. Existing technologies lack a quantitative evaluation system that directly links operating distance, body posture, and safety levels.

[0007] (4) Insufficient design guidance, which easily leads to design changes in the later stage: Due to the above limitations, in the digital prototype or clay model stage, it is often difficult to accurately identify those layout points that are "accessible but uncomfortable, or accessible but have safety hazards" in advance by relying solely on the traditional envelope method for verification. Related problems are often left to the subjective evaluation stage after the actual vehicle prototype is manufactured. At this time, design changes will involve mold modification, parts remanufacturing, etc., which will lead to an extension of the development cycle and a significant increase in costs.

[0008] In summary, existing methods for verifying the operability of automotive functional components, due to their inherent limitations based on the static maximum envelope principle, suffer from significant shortcomings in terms of scenario adaptability, posture refinement, safety correlation, and pre-design guidance. Therefore, there is an urgent need in the field for a new method that can more realistically reflect driving behavior, finely differentiate different operating conditions, and quantitatively correlate operating distance with safety and comfort. This method would provide more accurate guidance for functional component placement in the early design stages, improve design quality and efficiency, and reduce the risk of later design changes from the outset. This invention addresses these technical problems. Summary of the Invention

[0009] This application provides a method and system for operational verification and evaluation of automotive functional components, which can solve the technical problems of existing operational verification methods for automotive functional components, which are limited by the principle of static maximum envelope, and have deficiencies in terms of scene adaptability, attitude refinement, safety correlation and pre-design guidance.

[0010] In a first aspect, embodiments of this application provide a method for operational verification and evaluation of automotive functional components, comprising: Using the standard reference point of the driver's seat as the spatial benchmark, and combining the human body size standard table and key angle parameters, the coordinates of the driver's shoulder point in the vehicle coordinate system are calculated; the key angle parameters include the backrest angle, chest angle and shoulder angle. Obtain the calibration condition table and calculate the theoretical operating distance from the center point of the functional component to the driver's shoulder point under different calibration conditions; the calibration condition table is composed of different types of functional components and arm status of the operation mode, as well as the driver's shoulder and back and the seat's leaning situation; For each verification condition and its corresponding theoretical operating distance, the degree of its impact on driving safety and comfort is correlated, and then it is categorized into evaluation standard tables with different safety levels. Obtain the actual distance from the center of the functional component to be verified to the driver's shoulder point coordinates, and then make a judgment based on the evaluation criteria table to output the verification evaluation result.

[0011] Preferably, the driver's shoulder coordinates in the vehicle coordinate system are calculated, specifically including the following steps: Establish a chain of joints; the chain of joints includes the chest joints, neck joints, shoulder joints, elbow joints, wrist joints, and the foremost point of the middle finger. Based on the human body size standard table, obtain basic data about seat height, shoulder height, shoulder width between elbows, upper arm length, forearm length, hand length, index finger length, and the part of the index fingertip that extends beyond the hand length; Using the aforementioned basic data, the chain of joints, and the standard reference point of the driver's seat, node parameters are obtained; then, the driver's shoulder coordinates are calculated using the node parameters and key angle parameters.

[0012] Preferably, obtaining node parameters specifically includes the following steps: The distance from the driver's seat standard reference point to the chest joint point is obtained based on the basic data and recorded as L3; The distance from the chest joint to the neck joint is obtained based on the basic data and denoted as L4; The distance from the cervical joint to the shoulder joint is obtained based on the basic data and denoted as L5; The distance from the shoulder joint to the elbow joint is denoted as L6, and then the upper arm length value in the basic data is assigned to L6. The distance from the elbow joint to the wrist joint is L7, and then the forearm length value in the basic data is assigned to L7. The distance from the wrist joint to the foremost point of the middle finger is L8, and then the hand length value in the basic data is assigned to L8; L3, L4, L5, L6, L7, L8, and the driver's seat standard reference point are used as node parameters.

[0013] Preferably, the driver's shoulder point coordinates are (Xs, Ys, Zs); The coordinates of the standard reference point for the seat are (HPX, HPY, HPZ). The shoulder angle includes the x-plane projection angle θsx, the y-plane projection angle θsy, and the z-plane projection angle θsz. The driver's shoulder coordinates are calculated using node parameters and key angle parameters, and obtained through the following formula: Xs= HPX+L3*sin(α)+L4*sin(θ3)-L5*sin(θsx); Ys = HPY ± L5 * sin(θsy); Zs= HPZ+L3*COS(α)+L4*COS(θ3)-L5*COS(θsz); Where α is the backrest angle and θ3 is the chest angle.

[0014] Preferably, the different types of operation methods and functional components include full-hand grip operation, multi-finger pinch operation, and single-finger press operation; arm status includes elbow straight and elbow bent; the driver's shoulder and back leaning against the seat includes shoulder against seat back, shoulder away from seat back, and shoulder and back away from seat back. To obtain the verification operating condition sheet, the specific steps are as follows: The conditions are divided into three parallel primary conditions based on how the driver's shoulders and back are supported by the seat. Based on the arm's condition, it is divided into two parallel secondary conditions; According to the different types of functional components in terms of operation method, the conditions are divided into three parallel three-level conditions; Each primary condition corresponds to two parallel secondary conditions; each secondary condition corresponds to three parallel tertiary conditions; a verification condition includes one primary condition, one secondary condition, and one tertiary condition.

[0015] Preferably, the theoretical operating distance from the center point of the functional component to the driver's shoulder point coordinates is calculated under different verification conditions, specifically including the following steps: When the first-level condition is that the shoulders are against the seat back, and the second-level condition is that the elbows are straight, the theoretical operating distance for the three third-level conditions is calculated as follows: Q1 = L6 + L7 + L8 - middle finger length; Q3 = L6 + L7 + L8 - index finger difference; Q2 = [Q1 + Q3] / 2; where Q1 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current full-hand grip operation, Q2 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current multi-finger pinch operation, Q3 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current single-finger pressing operation, and L6, L7, and L8 are the upper arm length, forearm length, and hand length, respectively; When the first-level condition is that the shoulder is against the seat back, and the second-level condition is that the elbow is bent, the theoretical operating distance for the three third-level conditions is calculated as follows: Q4= +L8 - middle finger length; Q5 = 1 / 2 (Q4 + Q6); Q6 = +L8-index finger difference; where Q4 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current full-hand grip operation, Q5 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current multi-finger pinch operation, and Q6 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current single-finger press operation. This refers to the elbow angle.

[0016] Preferably, when the first-level condition is that the shoulder is away from the seat back, and the second-level condition is that the elbow is bent, the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the three third-level conditions is calculated as follows: Q7 = Q4 + L4 * sin( θ); Q8=Q5+L4*sin( θ); Q9=Q6+L4*sin( θ); where Q7 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current full-hand grip operation, Q8 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current multi-finger pinch operation, and Q9 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current single-finger press operation. θ is the forward tilt compensation angle; When the first-level condition is that the shoulder is off the seat back, and the second-level condition is that the elbow is straight, the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the three third-level conditions is calculated as follows: Q10 = Q1 + L4 * sin( θ); Q11=Q2+L4*sin( θ); Q12=Q3+L4*sin( θ), where Q10 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current full-hand grip operation, Q11 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current multi-finger pinch operation, and Q12 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current single-finger press operation.

[0017] Preferably, when the first-level condition is that the shoulders and back are away from the seat back, the second-level condition is that the elbow is straight, and the backrest angle is the first angle, the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the three third-level conditions is calculated as follows: Q13 = Q10 + L3 * sin(α); Q14 = Q11 + L3 * sin(α); Q15 = Q12 + L3 * sin(α); where Q13 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current full-hand grip operation, Q14 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current multi-finger pinch operation, and Q15 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current single-finger press operation; When the first-level condition is that the shoulders and back are away from the seat back, the second-level condition is that the elbow is straight, and the backrest angle is the second angle, the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the three third-level conditions is calculated as follows: Q16 = Q10 + L3 * sin(α); Q17 = Q11 + L3 * sin(α); Q18 = Q12 + L3 * sin(α); where Q16 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current full-hand grip operation, Q17 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current multi-finger pinch operation, and Q18 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current single-finger press operation.

[0018] Preferably, the actual distance from the center of the functional component to be verified to the driver's shoulder point coordinates is obtained, and then judged in conjunction with the evaluation criteria table to output the verification evaluation result. The specific steps include: Based on the expected verification conditions of the functional component to be verified, select a corresponding target verification condition and the corresponding theoretical operating distance from the evaluation criteria table; Compare the actual distance from the center of the functional component to be verified to the driver's shoulder point coordinates with the corresponding theoretical operating distance; If the difference between the two exceeds the preset range, the functional component needs to be optimized; otherwise, it meets the requirements.

[0019] Secondly, embodiments of this application provide an operational verification and evaluation system for automotive functional components, comprising: The first module is used to calculate the driver's shoulder point coordinates in the vehicle coordinate system, using the standard reference point of the driver's seat as the spatial reference and combining the human body size standard table with key angle parameters; the key angle parameters include backrest angle, chest angle and shoulder angle. The second module is used to obtain the calibration condition table and calculate the theoretical operating distance from the center point of the functional component to the driver's shoulder point under different calibration conditions. The calibration condition table is composed of different types of functional components and arm status of the operation mode, as well as the driver's shoulder and back and the seat's leaning situation. The third module is used to correlate the impact of each verification condition and its corresponding theoretical operating distance on driving safety and comfort, and then classify them into evaluation standard tables with different safety levels. The fourth module is used to obtain the actual distance from the center of the functional component to be checked to the driver's shoulder point coordinates, and then make a judgment based on the evaluation criteria table to output the check evaluation result.

[0020] The beneficial effects of the technical solutions provided in this application include: Traditional methods use a static R-point as the sole benchmark, failing to reflect the movement of the operating origin point caused by seat adjustments and changes in body posture during actual driving. This application introduces key angle parameters (backrest angle, chest angle, and shoulder angle) and dynamically calculates the driver's shoulder point coordinates based on human body dimensions. This dynamically links the driver's shoulder point coordinates to specific seating angles, enabling the benchmark point for operability evaluation to accurately reflect the driver's current seating state. This significantly improves the accuracy of distance calculation and verification results, making the evaluation more closely resemble real-world driving scenarios. Furthermore, it expands the evaluation dimensions from a single "maximum package" to multi-dimensional, refined driving conditions, enhancing the comprehensiveness and relevance of the verification.

[0021] Abandoning the single envelope model that only considers the limit of limb extension, this method systematically defines a variety of typical operating conditions, including comfortable elbow flexion and slight forward leaning and pressing, through multi-dimensional combination. It can accurately simulate and evaluate the driver's real operating ability (theoretical operating distance) under different operating habits and different levels of effort, which is more comprehensive and precise.

[0022] This approach correlates theoretical operating distances with their impact on driving safety and comfort, categorizing them into a tiered evaluation standard table with different safety levels. Then, the actual distance from the center of the functional component to be verified to the driver's shoulder point coordinates is used to make a judgment based on the evaluation standard table. This upgrades a simple "reachability" judgment to a safety evaluation based on distance values. This establishes for the first time a set of quantitative, intuitive, and directly linked operational design guidelines for driving safety risks. Designers can use this standard to clearly distinguish between comfortable operating areas and areas with potential safety hazards, thus prioritizing driving safety from the design stage. In the early design phase, this process can be used to quickly and objectively predictively verify the functional component layout scheme, providing clear conclusions and guidance. It fundamentally solves the technical problems mentioned in the background technology, such as static models, limited scenarios, lack of safety correlation, and insufficient design guidance, and has positive significance for improving the quality and efficiency of automotive ergonomics design. Attached Figure Description

[0023] Figure 1 The intended representation of the human body size standards provided in this application; Figure 2 A schematic diagram of the joint chain shown when a human is seated, provided for this application; Figure 3 A schematic diagram of the key angle parameters provided for this application; Figure 4 This is a flowchart illustrating the operational verification and evaluation method for automotive functional components in this application. Detailed Implementation

[0024] To enable those skilled in the art to better understand the present application, the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present application will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present application, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments in the present application, all other embodiments obtained by those of ordinary skill in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present application.

[0025] First, some of the technical terms used in this application will be explained to help those skilled in the art understand this application.

[0026] Driver R point: refers to the standard reference point (SgRP point) of the driver's seat in automobile design, and its coordinate symbols are (HPX, HPY, HPZ).

[0027] S point: Driver's shoulder point.

[0028] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of this application clearer, the embodiments of this application will be described in further detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0029] Existing methods for verifying the operability of automotive functional components, due to their inherent limitations based on the static maximum envelope principle, have significant shortcomings in terms of scenario adaptability, posture refinement, safety correlation, and pre-design guidance. Therefore, there is an urgent need in this field for a new method that can more realistically reflect driving behavior, finely differentiate different operating conditions, and quantitatively correlate operating distance with safety and comfort. This would allow for more accurate guidance of functional component placement in the early design stages, improving design quality and efficiency, and reducing the risk of later design changes from the outset.

[0030] In a first aspect, embodiments of this application provide a method for operational verification and evaluation of automotive functional components, comprising: Step 100: Using the standard reference point of the driver's seat as the spatial reference, and combining the human body size standard table and key angle parameters, calculate the coordinates of the driver's shoulder point in the vehicle coordinate system; key angle parameters include backrest angle, chest angle and shoulder angle. Step 200: Obtain the calibration condition table and calculate the theoretical operating distance from the center point of the functional component to the driver's shoulder point coordinates under different calibration conditions; the calibration condition table is composed of different types of functional components and arm status of the operation mode, as well as the driver's shoulder and back and the seat's leaning situation. Step 300: For each verification condition and its corresponding theoretical operating distance, correlate the degree of its impact on driving operation safety and comfort, and then classify them into evaluation standard tables with different safety levels. Step 400: Obtain the actual distance from the center of the functional component to be verified to the driver's shoulder point coordinates, and then make a judgment based on the evaluation criteria table to output the verification evaluation result.

[0031] The above steps, by introducing key angle parameters (backrest angle, chest angle, shoulder angle) and combining them with human body dimensions to calculate shoulder point coordinates, change the traditional method that uses the static R point as the sole benchmark. This allows the benchmark for operation evaluation to dynamically change with the driver's sitting posture angle, which is more in line with the actual riding condition.

[0032] By defining the verification conditions by combining three dimensions—operation mode, arm position, and shoulder and back support—it breaks through the limitations of the traditional single maximum envelope and can simulate and evaluate various real-world operating scenarios under different operating habits and body postures of the driver.

[0033] By linking theoretical operating distance with the degree of impact on driving safety and comfort, and classifying them into different safety levels, a set of quantifiable and directly safety-linked operational evaluation standards has been established for the first time, enabling the evaluation results to have clear engineering guidance significance for the level judgment.

[0034] By applying the aforementioned evaluation criteria table to actual distance judgment, a complete and executable verification process is formed, from theoretical modeling to standard generation and then to practical application. This enables design problems to be identified and corrected in the early digital stage, avoiding later design changes.

[0035] Ultimately, the combination of dynamic and precise benchmarks, comprehensive and detailed operating conditions, scientifically quantified safety standards, and an executable pre-verification process fundamentally improves design quality and efficiency while reducing later-stage risks.

[0036] In some embodiments, the driver's shoulder coordinates in the vehicle coordinate system are calculated, specifically including the following steps: Establish a chain of joints; the chain of joints includes the chest joints, neck joints, shoulder joints, elbow joints, wrist joints, and the foremost point of the middle finger. Based on human body size standards (e.g.) Figure 1 (As shown) Obtain basic data regarding seat height, shoulder height, shoulder width between elbows, upper arm length, forearm length, hand length, index finger length, and the portion of the index fingertip extending beyond the hand length; for example, referring to GB / T 10000-2023, general operability evaluation is based on the P50 quantile human body unfolding, where the seat height is 921mm, shoulder height is 611mm, elbow width is 445mm, L1 upper arm length is 318mm, forearm length is 235mm, hand length is 184mm, index finger length is 72mm, and the distance between the proximal and distal ends is 18-20mm; Using the aforementioned basic data, the chain of joints, and the standard reference point of the driver's seat, node parameters are obtained; then, the driver's shoulder coordinates are calculated using the node parameters and key angle parameters.

[0037] Among them, reference Figure 2 and Figure 3 As shown, obtaining node parameters specifically includes the following steps: Based on basic data, obtain the driver's seat standard reference point R (i.e. Figure 2 The distance from the marker HP to the thoracic joint B is denoted as L3; The distance from the chest joint B to the neck joint N is obtained based on the basic data and denoted as L4. The distance from the cervical joint point N to the shoulder joint point S is obtained based on the basic data and denoted as L5. The distance from the shoulder joint point S to the elbow joint point E is denoted as L6, and then the upper arm length value in the basic data is assigned to L6. The distance from the elbow joint point E to the wrist joint point H is L7, and then the value of the forearm length in the basic data is assigned to L7. The distance from the wrist joint point H to the foremost point F of the middle finger is L8, and then the hand length value in the basic data is assigned to L8. L3, L4, L5, L6, L7, L8, and the driver's seat standard reference point are used as node parameters.

[0038] The coordinates of the driver's shoulder point are (Xs, Ys, Zs). The coordinates of the standard reference point for the seat are (HPX, HPY, HPZ). The shoulder angle includes the x-plane projection angle θsx, the y-plane projection angle θsy, and the z-plane projection angle θsz. The driver's shoulder coordinates are calculated using node parameters and key angle parameters, and obtained through the following formula: Xs= HPX+L3*sin(α)+L4*sin(θ3)-L5*sin(θsx); Ys = HPY ± L5 * sin(θsy); Zs= HPZ+L3*COS(α)+L4*COS(θ3)-L5*COS(θsz); Where α is the backrest angle and θ3 is the chest angle.

[0039] For example, after extensive data collection, α=18-25, θ3=90-110° (average 106°), θsx=18-21° (average 20.8), θsy=10-13°, and θsz=18-23 (average 21.5). Substituting human body parameters, the coordinates of the driver's shoulder point S are: Driver's shoulder point coordinates S(X, Y, Z) = (HPX + 163, HPY ± 188, HPZ + 418, (when the backrest angle is 25°, different conversions are required) The above steps transform abstract human body dimensions into specific, measurable joint chain distance parameters, ensuring that the calculation of shoulder point coordinates is based on rigorous human anatomy and anthropometry, thus guaranteeing the scientific validity and repeatability of the model.

[0040] By explicitly defining parameters L3-L8, the complex geometric relationships of driver posture are decomposed into a series of standardized length variables, providing a unified and structured input basis for distance calculations under all subsequent operating conditions, thus enhancing the systematicity and programmability of the method. This lays a reliable and computable mathematical model foundation for the entire evaluation system. Furthermore, for the first time, seat reference points (HPX, HPY, HPZ), torso length, and multiple key sitting angles are organically combined through spatial geometric relationships, enabling precise calculation of the three-dimensional position of the driver's shoulder point in the vehicle coordinate system under different backrest angles and body postures. This reveals the quantitative influence of posture angles on the operating reference; the formula clearly shows that the shoulder point position is not fixed but systematically changes with variations in the backrest angle (α), chest angle (θ3), and shoulder angles (θsx, θsz). This mathematically proves the necessity of establishing a dynamic evaluation reference and provides an accurate starting point for subsequent calculations of operating distances under different postures.

[0041] In some embodiments, the different types of operation function components include full-hand grip operation, multi-finger pinch operation, and single-finger press operation; arm state includes elbow extended and elbow bent; the driver's shoulder and back leaning against the seat includes shoulder against seat back, shoulder away from seat back, and shoulder and back away from seat back. To obtain the verification operating condition sheet, the specific steps are as follows: The conditions are divided into three parallel primary conditions based on how the driver's shoulders and back are supported by the seat. Based on the arm's condition, it is divided into two parallel secondary conditions; According to the different types of functional components in terms of operation method, the conditions are divided into three parallel three-level conditions; Each primary condition corresponds to two parallel secondary conditions; each secondary condition corresponds to three parallel tertiary conditions; a verification condition includes one primary condition, one secondary condition, and one tertiary condition.

[0042] In this embodiment, the construction logic of the verification condition table is explicitly defined as a three-level tree structure (Level 1: leaning condition; Level 2: arm status; Level 3: operation mode), and its combination relationship is explained.

[0043] This system achieves a systematic enumeration and organization of multi-dimensional working conditions. This hierarchical combination method ensures comprehensive coverage of the entire operational behavior space, encompassing "shoulder and back support - arm position - operating hand shape." It summarizes the originally complex and diverse operational scenarios into a clearly structured and logically rigorous set of working conditions.

[0044] This hierarchical division (especially the use of reliance as a primary condition) directly corresponds to the progressive logic of "baseline → forward tilt compensation" in subsequent distance calculations, making complex multi-condition calculations more organized and traceable.

[0045] In some embodiments, the theoretical operating distance from the center point of the functional component to the driver's shoulder point coordinates is calculated under different verification conditions, specifically including the following steps: When the first-level condition is that the shoulders are against the seat back, and the second-level condition is that the elbows are straight, the theoretical operating distance for the three third-level conditions is calculated as follows: Q1 = L6 + L7 + L8 - middle finger length; Q3 = L6 + L7 + L8 - index finger difference; Q2 = [Q1 + Q3] / 2; where Q1 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current full-hand grip operation, Q2 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current multi-finger pinch operation, Q3 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current single-finger pressing operation, and L6, L7, and L8 are the upper arm length, forearm length, and hand length, respectively; When the first-level condition is that the shoulder is against the seat back, and the second-level condition is that the elbow is bent, the theoretical operating distance for the three third-level conditions is calculated as follows: Q4= +L8 - middle finger length; Q5 = 1 / 2 (Q4 + Q6); Q6 = +L8-index finger difference; where Q4 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current full-hand grip operation, Q5 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current multi-finger pinch operation, and Q6 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current single-finger press operation. This refers to the elbow angle.

[0046] When the first-level condition is that the shoulder is off the seat back, and the second-level condition is that the elbow is bent, the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the three third-level conditions is calculated as follows: Q7 = Q4 + L4 * sin( θ); Q8=Q5+L4*sin( θ); Q9=Q6+L4*sin( θ); where Q7 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current full-hand grip operation, Q8 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current multi-finger pinch operation, and Q9 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current single-finger press operation. θ is the forward tilt compensation angle; When the first-level condition is that the shoulder is off the seat back, and the second-level condition is that the elbow is straight, the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the three third-level conditions is calculated as follows: Q10 = Q1 + L4 * sin( θ); Q11=Q2+L4*sin( θ); Q12=Q3+L4*sin( θ), where Q10 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current full-hand grip operation, Q11 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current multi-finger pinch operation, and Q12 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current single-finger press operation.

[0047] When the first-level condition is that the shoulders and back are away from the seat back, the second-level condition is that the elbow is straight, and the backrest angle is the first angle, the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the three third-level conditions is calculated as follows: Q13 = Q10 + L3 * sin(α); Q14 = Q11 + L3 * sin(α); Q15 = Q12 + L3 * sin(α); where Q13 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current full-hand grip operation, Q14 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current multi-finger pinch operation, and Q15 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current single-finger press operation; When the first-level condition is that the shoulders and back are away from the seat back, the second-level condition is that the elbow is straight, and the backrest angle is the second angle (the second angle is greater than the first angle), the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the three third-level conditions is calculated as follows: Q16 = Q10 + L3 * sin(α); Q17 = Q11 + L3 * sin(α); Q18 = Q12 + L3 * sin(α); where Q16 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current full-hand grip operation, Q17 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current multi-finger pinch operation, and Q18 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current single-finger press operation.

[0048] The above calculations systematically derive distance values ​​for all forward-leaning conditions (Q7-Q18) from the six basic values ​​(Q1-Q6) through a progressive superposition process. This forms a logically rigorous calculation process with clear numerical correlations, ensuring the consistency and scientific rigor of the evaluation standards. Constructing a complete and self-consistent multi-condition operational distance spectrum with minimal computational complexity is key to the method's efficiency and scientific validity.

[0049] The above calculation process and evaluation criteria can be referenced in the following table: Table 1

[0050] In some embodiments, the actual distance from the center of the functional component to be verified to the driver's shoulder point coordinates is obtained, and then judged in conjunction with the evaluation criteria table to output the verification evaluation result. Specifically, the following steps are included: Based on the expected verification conditions of the functional component to be verified, select a corresponding target verification condition and the corresponding theoretical operating distance from the evaluation criteria table; Compare the actual distance from the center of the functional component to be verified to the driver's shoulder point coordinates with the corresponding theoretical operating distance; If the difference between the two exceeds the preset range, the functional component needs to be optimized; otherwise, it meets the requirements.

[0051] In this embodiment, by using explicit comparison rules and preset thresholds, the judgment of whether the layout is reasonable, which originally relied on subjective experience, is transformed into an objective and repeatable numerical comparison process, eliminating the uncertainty of the evaluation results. The logic itself implicitly suggests directions for improvement: if the actual distance is much greater than the theoretical value, the functional components need to be placed closer together; conversely, they need to be placed further apart. This provides direct and quantitative input for design optimization.

[0052] Secondly, an operational verification and evaluation system for automotive functional components is provided, comprising: The first module is used to calculate the driver's shoulder point coordinates in the vehicle coordinate system, using the standard reference point of the driver's seat as the spatial reference and combining the human body size standard table with key angle parameters; the key angle parameters include backrest angle, chest angle and shoulder angle. The second module is used to obtain the calibration condition table and calculate the theoretical operating distance from the center point of the functional component to the driver's shoulder point under different calibration conditions. The calibration condition table is composed of different types of functional components and arm status of the operation mode, as well as the driver's shoulder and back and the seat's leaning situation. The third module is used to correlate the impact of each verification condition and its corresponding theoretical operating distance on driving safety and comfort, and then classify them into evaluation standard tables with different safety levels. The fourth module is used to obtain the actual distance from the center of the functional component to be checked to the driver's shoulder point coordinates, and then make a judgment based on the evaluation criteria table to output the check evaluation result.

[0053] The functional components include at least one of the following: control buttons on the steering wheel, steering column combination switch, display screen and physical buttons on the center console, and window control switches on the doors.

[0054] Thirdly, embodiments of this application provide an operational verification and evaluation device for automotive functional components. The operational verification and evaluation device for automotive functional components can be a personal computer (PC), a laptop computer, a server, or other device with data processing capabilities.

[0055] In this embodiment, the automotive functional component operability verification and evaluation device may include a processor, a memory, a communication interface, and a communication bus.

[0056] The communication bus can be of any type and is used to interconnect the processor, memory, and communication interface.

[0057] The communication interface includes input / output (I / O) interfaces, physical interfaces, and logical interfaces used for interconnecting components within the automotive functional component operability verification and evaluation equipment, as well as interfaces used for interconnecting the equipment with other devices (such as other computing devices or user equipment). Physical interfaces can be Ethernet interfaces, fiber optic interfaces, ATM interfaces, etc.; user equipment can be displays, keyboards, etc.

[0058] Memory can be various types of storage media, such as random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), non-volatile RAM (NVRAM), flash memory, optical storage, hard disk, programmable ROM (PROM), erasable PROM (EPROM), electrically erasable PROM (EEPROM), etc.

[0059] The processor can be a general-purpose processor, which can call the automotive functional component operability verification and evaluation program stored in the memory and execute the automotive functional component operability verification and evaluation method provided in the embodiments of this application. For example, the general-purpose processor can be a central processing unit (CPU). The method executed when the automotive functional component operability verification and evaluation program is called can refer to the various embodiments of the automotive functional component operability verification and evaluation method of this application, and will not be repeated here.

[0060] Fourthly, embodiments of this application also provide a computer-readable storage medium.

[0061] The present application stores an automotive functional component operability verification and evaluation program on a computer-readable storage medium, wherein when the automotive functional component operability verification and evaluation program is executed by a processor, it implements the steps of the automotive functional component operability verification and evaluation method described above.

[0062] The method implemented when the automotive functional component operability verification and evaluation procedure is executed can be referred to in various embodiments of the automotive functional component operability verification and evaluation method of this application, and will not be repeated here.

[0063] It should be noted that the sequence numbers of the embodiments in this application are for descriptive purposes only and do not represent the superiority or inferiority of the embodiments.

[0064] The terms "comprising" and "having," and any variations thereof, in the specification, claims, and accompanying drawings of this application are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion. For example, a process, method, system, product, or apparatus that includes a series of steps or units is not limited to the listed steps or units, but may optionally include steps or units not listed, or may optionally include other steps or units inherent to such process, method, product, or apparatus. The terms "first," "second," and "third," etc., are used to distinguish different objects, etc., and do not indicate a sequence, nor do they limit "first," "second," and "third" to different types.

[0065] In the description of the embodiments of this application, terms such as "exemplary," "for example," or "for instance" are used to indicate examples, illustrations, or explanations. Any embodiment or design described as "exemplary," "for example," or "for instance" in the embodiments of this application should not be construed as being more preferred or advantageous than other embodiments or designs. Specifically, the use of terms such as "exemplary," "for example," or "for instance" is intended to present the relevant concepts in a concrete manner.

[0066] In the description of the embodiments of this application, unless otherwise stated, " / " means "or". For example, A / B can mean A or B. The "and / or" in the text is merely a description of the relationship between related objects, indicating that there can be three relationships. For example, A and / or B can mean: A exists alone, A and B exist simultaneously, and B exists alone. In addition, in the description of the embodiments of this application, "multiple" means two or more.

[0067] In some processes described in the embodiments of this application, multiple operations or steps are included in a specific order. However, it should be understood that these operations or steps may not be executed in the order they appear in the embodiments of this application, or they may be executed in parallel. The sequence number of the operation is only used to distinguish different operations, and the sequence number itself does not represent any execution order. In addition, these processes may include more or fewer operations, and these operations or steps may be executed sequentially or in parallel, and these operations or steps may be combined.

[0068] Through the above description of the embodiments, those skilled in the art can clearly understand that the methods of the above embodiments can be implemented by means of software plus necessary general-purpose hardware platforms. Of course, they can also be implemented by hardware, but in many cases the former is a better implementation method. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of this application, in essence, or the part that contributes to the prior art, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product is stored in a storage medium (such as ROM / RAM, magnetic disk, optical disk) as described above, and includes several instructions to cause a terminal device to execute the methods described in the various embodiments of this application.

[0069] The above are merely preferred embodiments of this application and do not limit the patent scope of this application. Any equivalent structural or procedural transformations made using the content of this application's specification and drawings, or direct or indirect applications in other related technical fields, are similarly included within the patent protection scope of this application.

Claims

1. A method for verifying and evaluating the operability of automotive functional components, characterized in that, It includes: Using the standard reference point of the driver's seat as the spatial benchmark, and combining the human body size standard table and key angle parameters, the coordinates of the driver's shoulder point in the vehicle coordinate system are calculated. Key angle parameters include backrest angle, chest angle, and shoulder angle; Obtain the calibration condition table and calculate the theoretical operating distance from the center point of the functional component to the driver's shoulder point under different calibration conditions; the calibration condition table is composed of different types of functional components and arm status of the operation mode, as well as the driver's shoulder and back and the seat's leaning situation; For each verification condition and its corresponding theoretical operating distance, the degree of its impact on driving safety and comfort is correlated, and then it is categorized into evaluation standard tables with different safety levels. Obtain the actual distance from the center of the functional component to be verified to the driver's shoulder point coordinates, and then make a judgment based on the evaluation criteria table to output the verification evaluation result.

2. The method for operational verification and evaluation of automotive functional components as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The calculation of the driver's shoulder coordinates in the vehicle coordinate system includes the following steps: Establish a chain of joints; the chain of joints includes the chest joints, neck joints, shoulder joints, elbow joints, wrist joints, and the foremost point of the middle finger. Based on the human body size standard table, obtain basic data about seat height, shoulder height, shoulder width between elbows, upper arm length, forearm length, hand length, index finger length, and the part of the index fingertip that extends beyond the hand length; Using the aforementioned basic data, the chain of joints, and the standard reference point of the driver's seat, node parameters are obtained; then, the driver's shoulder coordinates are calculated using the node parameters and key angle parameters.

3. The method for operational verification and evaluation of automotive functional components as described in claim 2, characterized in that, Obtaining node parameters specifically includes the following steps: The distance from the driver's seat standard reference point to the chest joint point is obtained based on the basic data and denoted as L3; The distance from the chest joint to the neck joint is obtained based on the basic data and denoted as L4; The distance from the cervical joint to the shoulder joint is obtained based on the basic data and denoted as L5; The distance from the shoulder joint to the elbow joint is denoted as L6, and then the upper arm length value in the basic data is assigned to L6. The distance from the elbow joint to the wrist joint is L7, and then the value of the forearm length in the basic data is assigned to L7. The distance from the wrist joint to the foremost point of the middle finger is L8, and then the hand length value in the basic data is assigned to L8; L3, L4, L5, L6, L7, L8, and the driver's seat standard reference point are used as node parameters.

4. The method for operational verification and evaluation of automotive functional components as described in claim 3, characterized in that: The coordinates of the driver's shoulder point are (Xs, Ys, Zs). The coordinates of the standard reference point for the seat are (HPX, HPY, HPZ). The shoulder angle includes the x-plane projection angle θsx, the y-plane projection angle θsy, and the z-plane projection angle θsz. The driver's shoulder coordinates are calculated using node parameters and key angle parameters, and obtained through the following formula: Xs= HPX+L3*sin(α)+L4*sin(θ3)-L5*sin(θsx); Ys = HPY ± L5 * sin(θsy); Zs= HPZ+L3*COS(α)+L4*COS(θ3)-L5*COS(θsz); Where α is the backrest angle and θ3 is the chest angle.

5. The method for operational verification and evaluation of automotive functional components as described in claim 4, characterized in that: The different types of operation methods and functional components include full-hand grip operation, multi-finger pinch operation, and single-finger press operation; arm position includes elbow straight and elbow bent; the driver's shoulder and back leaning against the seat includes shoulder against seat back, shoulder away from seat back, and shoulder and back away from seat back. To obtain the verification operating condition sheet, the specific steps are as follows: The conditions are divided into three parallel primary conditions based on how the driver's shoulders and back are supported by the seat. Based on the arm's condition, it is divided into two parallel secondary conditions; According to the different types of functional components in terms of operation method, the conditions are divided into three parallel three-level conditions; Each primary condition corresponds to two parallel secondary conditions; each secondary condition corresponds to three parallel tertiary conditions; a verification condition includes one primary condition, one secondary condition, and one tertiary condition.

6. The method for operational verification and evaluation of automotive functional components as described in claim 5, characterized in that, The theoretical operating distance from the center point of the functional component to the driver's shoulder point is calculated under different verification conditions, specifically including the following steps: When the first-level condition is that the shoulders are against the seat back, and the second-level condition is that the elbows are straight, the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the three third-level conditions is calculated as follows: Q1 = L6 + L7 + L8 - middle finger length; Q3 = L6 + L7 + L8 - index finger difference; Q2 = [Q1 + Q3] / 2; where Q1 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current full-hand grip operation, Q2 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current multi-finger pinch operation, Q3 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current single-finger pressing operation, and L6, L7, and L8 are the upper arm length, forearm length, and hand length, respectively; When the first-level condition is that the shoulder is against the seat back, and the second-level condition is that the elbow is bent, the theoretical operating distance for the three third-level conditions is calculated as follows: Q4= +L8 - middle finger length; Q5 = 1 / 2 (Q4 + Q6); Q6 = +L8-index finger difference; where Q4 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current full-hand grip operation, Q5 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current multi-finger pinch operation, and Q6 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current single-finger press operation. This refers to the elbow angle.

7. The method for operational verification and evaluation of automotive functional components as described in claim 6, characterized in that: When the first-level condition is that the shoulder is off the seat back, and the second-level condition is that the elbow is bent, the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the three third-level conditions is calculated as follows: Q7 = Q4 + L4 * sin( θ); Q8=Q5+L4*sin( θ); Q9=Q6+L4*sin( θ); where Q7 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current full-hand grip operation, Q8 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current multi-finger pinch operation, and Q9 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current single-finger press operation. θ is the forward tilt compensation angle; When the first-level condition is that the shoulder is off the seat back, and the second-level condition is that the elbow is straight, the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the three third-level conditions is calculated as follows: Q10 = Q1 + L4 * sin( θ); Q11=Q2+L4*sin( θ); Q12=Q3+L4*sin( θ), where Q10 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current full-hand grip operation, Q11 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current multi-finger pinch operation, and Q12 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current single-finger press operation.

8. The method for operational verification and evaluation of automotive functional components as described in claim 7, characterized in that: When the first-level condition is that the shoulders and back are away from the seat back, the second-level condition is that the elbow is straight, and the backrest angle is the first angle, the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the three third-level conditions is calculated as follows: Q13 = Q10 + L3 * sin(α); Q14 = Q11 + L3 * sin(α); Q15 = Q12 + L3 * sin(α); where Q13 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current full-hand grip operation, Q14 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current multi-finger pinch operation, and Q15 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current single-finger press operation; When the first-level condition is that the shoulders and back are away from the seat back, the second-level condition is that the elbow is straight, and the backrest angle is the second angle, the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the three third-level conditions is calculated as follows: Q16 = Q10 + L3 * sin(α); Q17 = Q11 + L3 * sin(α); Q18 = Q12 + L3 * sin(α); where Q16 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current full-hand grip operation, Q17 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current multi-finger pinch operation, and Q18 is the theoretical operating distance corresponding to the current single-finger press operation.

9. The method for operational verification and evaluation of automotive functional components as described in claim 1, characterized in that, Obtain the actual distance from the center of the functional component to be verified to the driver's shoulder point coordinates, and then make a judgment based on the evaluation criteria table to output the verification evaluation result. The specific steps include: Based on the expected verification conditions of the functional component to be verified, select a corresponding target verification condition and the corresponding theoretical operating distance from the evaluation criteria table; Compare the actual distance from the center of the functional component to be verified to the driver's shoulder point coordinates with the corresponding theoretical operating distance; If the difference between the two exceeds the preset range, the functional component needs to be optimized; otherwise, it meets the requirements.

10. A system for verifying and evaluating the operability of automotive functional components, characterized in that, It includes: The first module is used to calculate the driver's shoulder point coordinates in the vehicle coordinate system, using the standard reference point of the driver's seat as the spatial reference and combining the human body size standard table with key angle parameters; the key angle parameters include backrest angle, chest angle and shoulder angle. The second module is used to obtain the calibration condition table and calculate the theoretical operating distance from the center point of the functional component to the driver's shoulder point under different calibration conditions. The calibration condition table is composed of different types of functional components and arm status of the operation mode, as well as the driver's shoulder and back and the seat's leaning situation. The third module is used to correlate the impact of each verification condition and its corresponding theoretical operating distance on driving safety and comfort, and then classify them into evaluation standard tables with different safety levels. The fourth module is used to obtain the actual distance from the center of the functional component to be checked to the driver's shoulder point coordinates, and then make a judgment based on the evaluation criteria table to output the check evaluation result.

Images